Column

Score comparisons of 109 publications

Score heatmaps (PRISMA / AMSTAR)

Column

Individual results

61. Aikenhead 2011: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paediatric bariatric surgery: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "We performed a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of surgical interventions to treat obese children and adolescents, and whether they are cost-effective."
Reasoning: The authors state that they performed a systematic review, but they do not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 6 September 2010, and hand-searched bibliographies."
Reasoning: The authors mention multiple databases and a supplementary strategy (hand-searching bibliographies), indicating a comprehensive search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Thirty-seven relevant papers on bariatric surgery effectiveness in 831 children or adolescents were included, spanning 36 years."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Formal meta-analysis was not attempted due to the marked heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures among the included studies."
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "The project that led to this paper was funded by the WHO Health Evidence Network of the World Health Organization. The funder had no role in the design, analysis or interpretation of the study."
Reasoning: The authors disclose their funding source and state that the funder had no role in the study.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paediatric bariatric surgery: a systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Summary: Strong evidence for successful and cost-effective obesity management strategies is still generally lacking, leading the medical profession to rely increasingly on surgical options to treat obesity in children and adolescents. We performed a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of surgical interventions to treat obese children and adolescents, and whether they are cost-effective."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, methods, and results, but does not include all the required elements such as study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, limitations, and implications of key findings.
Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "During the last two decades the prevalence of childhood and adolescent obesity has grown rapidly in most regions of the world. Despite reports of levelling off in some countries (1–3), childhood obesity and its associated morbidities and costs are considerable and increasing in scale in many countries (4,5), particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged segments of many populations (6). Obese children and adolescents are more likely than their normal weight peers to suffer endocrine, cardiovascular, pulmonary, orthopaedic, psychosocial and other complications associated with excessive weight, many of which persist into adulthood (7–9). While prevention of obesity must continue to be a policy goal, the treatment of those that are already obese is an issue requiring urgent attention."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity and its associated health risks.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "This systematic review examines the evidence on effectiveness of surgical interventions to treat obese children and adolescents, and whether they are cost-effective."
Reasoning: The authors state the objectives of the review, but they do not explicitly mention the PICOS elements.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Articles with an abstract in English and full text in Danish, English, French, or Norwegian language were eligible. In addition, subjects had to be 19 years of age. At least one postoperative weight loss measure had to be reported, with a minimum follow-up time of 1 year post surgery. Clinical guidelines, reviews, meta-analyses and commentary on surgical interventions to treat obesity were excluded, as was grey literature such as conference proceedings."
Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies, including language, age of subjects, outcome measures, follow-up time, and types of publications excluded.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 6 September 2010, and hand-searched bibliographies."
Reasoning: The authors describe the databases they searched and the date of the last search, and they also mention hand-searching bibliographies.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "Search strategies were developed with PubMed using title abstract [tiab] terms; Appendix 1 contains details of the search terms."
Reasoning: The authors mention the search strategy and refer to an appendix for details.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not list or define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Formal meta-analysis was not attempted due to the marked heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures among the included studies."
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "The search strategy yielded 3724 citations of which 273 articles were identified as potentially relevant. Full copies of 247 of these papers were obtained; full copies of the remaining 26 (9.5%) publications of unknown eligibility were unobtainable despite numerous attempts. Examination of the full text of the 247 articles resulted in the exclusion of 210 studies for a variety of reasons including: no original data (n = 112), overlapping data (‘kin’ studies) (n = 13), no paediatric data (n = 65), less than 1 year of follow-up (n = 6), no weight-related surgical outcomes (n = 6), no surgical data (n = 4), foreign language (n = 2), non-bariatric surgery (n = 1) and grey literature (n = 1). Thirty-seven articles (11 case studies, 10 retrospective reviews, 8 cohorts, 3 cost studies, 2 prospective longitudinal trials, 1 longitudinal study, 1 retrospective cohort and 1 randomized controlled trial) were identified and included in the review."
Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Thirty-seven relevant papers on bariatric surgery effectiveness in 831 children or adolescents were included, spanning 36 years."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "Thirteen studies examined gastric banding, with mean body mass index (BMI) reductions ranging from 8.5 to 43 kg m-2. Weight gain was reported in one case study. Eight papers examined Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, with mean BMI reductions ranging from 9 to 25 kg m-2. Fourteen publications studied other forms of bariatric surgery: sleeve gastrectomies, vertical banded gastroplasty, biliopancreatic diversion or a combination of procedures. Mean BMI reductions ranged from 9 to 24 kg m-2."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each intervention group, but they do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Formal meta-analysis was not attempted due to the marked heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures among the included studies."
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the studies.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "The existing evidence – although based generally on underpowered, retrospective studies – suggests that bariatric surgery in older children results in significant weight loss and improvements in comorbidities and quality of life."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss the strength of the evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "This study was challenging due to a number of limitations in the existing literature: Studies assessing the effectiveness of surgical options for obesity in children and adolescents were (apart from one randomized controlled trial) either retrospective or observational, and systematically underpowered. Sample sizes were generally small, with the largest sample containing only 68 patients and the majority of studies reporting data on fewer than 40 patients. Results were not broadly comparable given a lack of consistency across surgeons, procedures and reported outcomes. Accurate information for low frequency outcomes like mortality and complications was sparse. No studies on clinical effectiveness reported on costs, and only one study addressed bariatric surgery cost in children."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study, including the quality of the included studies, small sample sizes, and lack of cost data.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "In the context of a general lack of effective tools for primary prevention or behavioural treatment of obesity, surgical treatment may be advocated as a preferred and cost-effective solution for certain children and adolescents. However, postoperative complications, compliance and follow-up may be more problematic in adolescents than adults, and availability of long-term data on safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remains largely unknown. Pending an improvement in the quality of available evidence, an academic approach to child and adolescent bariatric surgery is warranted, and reversible techniques are advisable compared to approaches that permanently alter the anatomy."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss the implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: "The project that led to this paper was funded by the WHO Health Evidence Network of the World Health Organization. The funder had no role in the design, analysis or interpretation of the study."
Reasoning: The authors disclose the source of funding for the review and state that the funder had no role in the study.
Response: [Yes]

62. Al-Hozaim 2010: Laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through for anorectal malformations: a systematic review and the need for standardization of outcome reporting

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the worldwide experience with LAARP with regard to indications, outcomes, and quality of reporting in published articles."
Reasoning: The authors stated the aim of the systematic review, but did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane databases (June 2000 to April 2008) was conducted. The search terms used were “laparoscopic,” “pull-through,” “anorectal malformation,” and “imperforate anus.” In addition, a manual search of 4 surgical journals from the same period was performed."
Reasoning: The authors described the databases and search terms used, and also performed a manual search of specific journals.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Seventeen studies were included in the final analysis. Of the included studies, none were randomized, 2 were prospective in nature, and 4 compared outcomes of posterior sagittal anorectoplasty and LAARP."
Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies, such as the number of studies and their design.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Because of the marked variation in the outcome measures (Table 3), it was not possible to perform a formal meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors did not combine the findings of the studies due to variation in outcome measures.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through for anorectal malformations: a systematic review and the need for standardization of outcome reporting"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Recently, several studies on LAARP have been reported, and although there has been an increase in interest, the level of evidence supporting the technique remains unclear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the worldwide experience with LAARP with regard to indications, outcomes, and quality of reporting in published articles."
Reasoning: The authors provided the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the worldwide experience with LAARP with regard to indications, outcomes, and quality of reporting in published articles."
Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, but did not reference PICOS.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Inclusion criteria were studies of ARMs, regardless of level of the defect, with or without associated anomalies, use of LAARP as a primary procedure or with colostomy, and studies reported after the year 2000. Exclusion criteria included studies that were not reported in English and those that did not deal with human subjects."
Reasoning: The authors specified the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane databases (June 2000 to April 2008) was conducted. The search terms used were “laparoscopic,” “pull-through,” “anorectal malformation,” and “imperforate anus.” In addition, a manual search of 4 surgical journals from the same period was performed."
Reasoning: The authors described the information sources and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "The search terms used were “laparoscopic,” “pull-through,” “anorectal malformation,” and “imperforate anus.”"
Reasoning: The authors presented the search terms used, but did not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "The initial search in the PUBMED database produced 24 articles, 11 of which met the inclusion criteria. The MEDLINE search resulted in 2 additional new studies, whereas the search of the Cochrane database did not yield any studies. The manual search of the 4 journals captured an additional 1 study from the Journal of Pediatric Surgery and 1 study from Pediatric Surgery International. Two additional articles were found in reference sections of other studies, bringing the total number of studies to 17."
Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "A data extraction form was created to standardize the collection of study elements from each included article. This form included the following information: inclusion/exclusion criteria, study title, author, characteristics of the journal (year of publication), study design, study period, sample size, and the focus of the study in use of the LAARP as a primary procedure or after colostomy."
Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Because of the marked variation in the outcome measures (Table 3), it was not possible to perform a formal meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors did not combine the results of studies due to variation in outcome measures.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "The initial search in the PUBMED database produced 24 articles, 11 of which met the inclusion criteria. The MEDLINE search resulted in 2 additional new studies, whereas the search of the Cochrane database did not yield any studies. The manual search of the 4 journals captured an additional 1 study from the Journal of Pediatric Surgery and 1 study from Pediatric Surgery International. Two additional articles were found in reference sections of other studies, bringing the total number of studies to 17."
Reasoning: The authors gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Seventeen studies were included in the final analysis. Of the included studies, none were randomized, 2 were prospective in nature, and 4 compared outcomes of posterior sagittal anorectoplasty and LAARP."
Reasoning: The authors presented some characteristics of the included studies, but did not provide the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "The studies included 124 patients—96 males (77.4%) and 28 females (22.6%). Of the 124 patients, 110 (88.7%) had undergone previous colostomy, whereas 14 patients (11.2%) had undergone a primary laparoscopic repair without a colostomy. Most patients (80%) had either a high or intermediate ARM."
Reasoning: The authors presented some summary data for each study, but did not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Because of the marked variation in the outcome measures (Table 3), it was not possible to perform a formal meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not give results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "We conclude that there is an urgent need to increase the number of studies reporting LAARP-related outcomes. More efforts are needed by the pediatric surgery community to improve the quality of studies and standardization of reports related ARM."
Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to the pediatric surgery community.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "Our study has several limitations. First, this is a systematic review of mainly retrospective data. The quality of such review is only as good as the included studies. Second, because of the wide variation of reported outcomes, no formal meta-analysis and calculation of summary statistics could be performed. Finally, our review only included articles published in English, which may have contributed to a selection bias by omitting relevant articles published in other languages."
Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of their systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "We conclude that there is an urgent need to increase the number of studies reporting LAARP-related outcomes. More efforts are needed by the pediatric surgery community to improve the quality of studies and standardization of reports related ARM."
Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

63. Allen 2015: Pediatric emergency department thoracotomy: A large case series and systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

12 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "We reviewed our experience and performed a systematic review of reports of EDT in pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review but do not provide any information about a pre-established protocol or research question.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the study selection and data extraction process.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "These reports were obtained from a Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 year using the keywords “thoracotomy”, “emergency”, “trauma”, “resuscitation”, “pediatrics”, and “children”. Bibliographies of relevant publications were reviewed to identify reports that were not initially located with the Medline search."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search using multiple keywords and checking bibliographies of relevant publications.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the inclusion of grey literature in the search strategy.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "Variables extracted from each report include demographics, MOI, injury location, presence of VS and/or SOL upon arrival, ROSC, survival to discharge, and neurologic outcomes for survivors."
Reasoning: The authors describe the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the use of the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the conflict of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Pediatric emergency department thoracotomy: A large case series and systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions.
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "The emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) is rarely utilized in children, and is thus difficult to identify survival factors. We reviewed our experience and performed a systematic review of reports of EDT in pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "To address this issue, we reviewed our experience at a level 1 trauma center and report the largest analysis over the past 25 years. In conjunction, we performed a systematic review of all published reports regarding pediatric EDT to help identify the factors associated with morbidity and mortality."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "With respect to our institution, we analyzed all pediatric patients (age ≤ 18) who received an EDT from 1991 to 2012."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "These reports were obtained from a Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 year using the keywords “thoracotomy”, “emergency”, “trauma”, “resuscitation”, “pediatrics”, and “children”. Bibliographies of relevant publications were reviewed to identify reports that were not initially located with the Medline search."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "These reports were obtained from a Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 year using the keywords “thoracotomy”, “emergency”, “trauma”, “resuscitation”, “pediatrics”, and “children”. Bibliographies of relevant publications were reviewed to identify reports that were not initially located with the Medline search."
Reasoning: The authors present the electronic search strategy for Medline.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Variables extracted from each report include demographics, MOI, injury location, presence of VS and/or SOL upon arrival, ROSC, survival to discharge, and neurologic outcomes for survivors."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "Variables extracted from each report include demographics, MOI, injury location, presence of VS and/or SOL upon arrival, ROSC, survival to discharge, and neurologic outcomes for survivors."
Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the risk of bias within studies.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "From our experiences and upon review of published reports, we have come to several conclusions. Overall, the mortality rates are comparable between adults and pediatric patients following EDT."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "There are limitations to this study. First, all of the data obtained from our institution were collected retrospectively, and thus not specifically collected for research purposes."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Despite these limitations, this is one of the largest series report and the first systematic review regarding pediatric EDT. The lack of extensive experience with this resuscitative measure in children and adolescents still prohibits the establishment of guidelines specific to this population."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

64. Allin 2015: Challenges of Improving the Evidence Base in Smaller Surgical Specialties, as Highlighted by a Systematic Review of Gastroschisis Management

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 96.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. The protocol was registered on the Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42012003241)."
Reasoning: The authors mention a pre-specified protocol that was registered on Prospero.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "Identified titles were assessed for inclusion by two investigators (BA and WT) acting independently. Any conflicts were resolved by a third investigator (MK). Data from included articles were extracted independently by the same two investigators (BA and WT), and any differences resolved by discussion."
Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent study selection and data extraction by two investigators, with a third investigator resolving any conflicts.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "Multiple search strategies were used to identify relevant articles from Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane library, and Google scholar, published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2012."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: No specific mention of grey literature search.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished studies.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Using the stated search strategy, 3081 papers were identified. After removal of duplicates, 751 unique articles remained. From this, 8 papers were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria, all of which were cohort studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide a summary of the number of studies identified, included, and excluded, but do not provide a full list of these studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "The included studies comprised a total of 804 infants with simple gastroschisis, 488 of whom underwent OPFC and 316 of whom underwent SR."
Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the total number of infants and the interventions they underwent.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria."
Reasoning: The authors mention using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "Our results would appear to suggest a potential benefit to OPFC over SR. However, our conclusion that OPFC is superior to SR must still be tempered by the low quality of the available primary data, and the limitations of our study."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations and quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook."
Reasoning: The authors mention using standard methods for data synthesis as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: No specific mention of assessing publication bias.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "Funding: Marian Knight is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Professorhip. This article presents independent research partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."
Reasoning: The authors disclose their funding sources and declare no competing interests.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Challenges of Improving the Evidence Base in Smaller Surgical Specialties, as Highlighted by a Systematic Review of Gastroschisis Management"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Abstract: Objective: To identify methods of improving the evidence base in smaller surgical specialties, using a systematic review of gastroschisis management as an example. Background: Operative primary fascial closure (OPFC), and silo placement with staged reduction and delayed closure (SR) are the most commonly used methods of gastroschisis closure. Relative merits of each are unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing outcomes following OPFC and SR in infants with simple gastroschisis. Primary outcomes of interest were mortality, length of hospitalization and time to full enteral feeding. Results: 751 unique articles were identified. Eight met the inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials. 488 infants underwent OPFC and 316 underwent SR. Multiple studies were excluded because they included heterogeneous populations and mixed intervention groups. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SR group (mean difference 8.97 days, 95% CI 2.14–15.80 days), as was number of post-operative days to complete enteral feeding (mean difference 7.19 days, 95%CI 2.01–12.36 days). Mortality was not statistically significantly different, although the odds of death were raised in the SR group (OR 1.96, 95%CI 0.71–5.35). Conclusions: Despite showing some benefit of OPFC over SR, our results are tempered by the low quality of the available studies, which were small and variably reported. Coordinating research through a National Paediatric Surgical Trials Unit could alleviate many of these problems. A similar national approach could be used in other smaller surgical specialties."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "With variation existing around the specifics of management of some of the most common neonatal surgical conditions including oesophageal atresia, gastroschisis and Hirschsprung’s disease, research should be commonplace. Yet despite these fertile conditions for research, for these three conditions, only fourteen prospectively registered clinical trials and two systematic reviews could be identified on a search of the major registries at the time of writing (Table 1). Whilst both the low incidence of many of the studied conditions, and the difficulties in gaining ethical approval are at least in part responsible for the lack of paediatric surgical research, we do not believe that they account for the whole story."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the current state of research in the field.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "The aim of this study, therefore, was to perform a systematic review of the literature comparing outcomes of infants with simple gastroschisis following either OPFC or SR. From this study we aimed to identify some of the reasons why research in paediatric surgery is currently largely unable to provide a strong evidence base to inform clinical practice."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, including the participants (infants with simple gastroschisis), interventions (OPFC or SR), and outcomes (reasons why research in paediatric surgery is currently largely unable to provide a strong evidence base to inform clinical practice).
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: "The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. The protocol was registered on the Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42012003241)."
Reasoning: The authors indicate that a review protocol exists and provide the registration number.
Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "All study designs except expert opinion were included, and no restrictions were made on the basis of study language or geographical location. Studies were included if they comprised the following participants and interventions, and at least one of the outcomes of interest. Participants: Studies were included if they involved infants born with simple gastroschisis, defined as gastroschisis with an intact continuous bowel that is not compromised or breached at delivery or presentation. Infants with complex gastroschisis, defined as the presence of at least one of intestinal perforation, necrosis, or atresia were excluded from this review, as they only account for approximately 11.5% of infants with gastroschisis, are known to have a worse prognosis than the majority with simple gastroschisis, and thus represent a major confounder in any examination of the outcomes of different management techniques."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "Multiple search strategies were used to identify relevant articles from Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane library, and Google scholar, published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2012."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the dates of coverage for their search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "Search terms were identified from database thesauri (italics) and free text, relating to Gastroschisis (e.g. Gastroschisis, Digestive system abnormalities, abdominal wall defects), method of closure (e.g. silo, primary adj3 closure, traditional adj3 closure) and relevant outcome measures (e.g. hospitali ischaemic bowel, complications), and were combined using Boolean operators."
Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy, including the search terms and the use of Boolean operators.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Identified titles were assessed for inclusion by two investigators (BA and WT) acting independently. Any conflicts were resolved by a third investigator (MK). Data from included articles were extracted independently by the same two investigators (BA and WT), and any differences resolved by discussion."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies, including independent assessment by two investigators and resolution of conflicts by a third investigator.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Data from included articles were extracted independently by the same two investigators (BA and WT), and any differences resolved by discussion. Where required, unpublished data were requested from the authors of each of the included studies to allow for meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction, including independent extraction by two investigators and resolution of differences through discussion.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Primary outcome measures: 1. Mortality 2. Length of hospital stay 3. Time to complete enteral feeding/duration of parenteral feeding Secondary outcome measures: 1. Duration of ventilator use 2. Infective complication 3. Perforation 4. Ischaemic bowel 5. Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC) 6. Anastomotic stricture 7. Adhesional small bowel obstruction 8. Complications related to stoma 9. Short bowel syndrome 10. Liver disease associated with intestinal failure"
Reasoning: The authors list and define all the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE checklist and GRADE criteria."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "Dichotomous outcomes were meta-analysed using Mantel–Haenszel fixed effects methods to produce summary odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Continuous variables were meta-analysed using the inverse-variance fixed-effect method to produce weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "Data were synthesized using standard methods as described in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook. The chi-squared test for heterogeneity was used to assess the extent to which the results of the studies were in agreement. Using a conservative cut-off of p<0.01, no statistical heterogeneity was detected and therefore fixed-effect methods were used throughout."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: No specific mention of assessing risk of bias across studies.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: No specific mention of additional analyses.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "Using the stated search strategy, 3081 papers were identified. After removal of duplicates, 751 unique articles remained. From this, 8 papers were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria, all of which were cohort studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "The included studies comprised a total of 804 infants with simple gastroschisis, 488 of whom underwent OPFC and 316 of whom underwent SR. The largest study was Owen 2010 with 290 eligible patients. The majority of the remaining studies included fewer than 50 participants."
Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies, including the study size and interventions.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: No specific mention of presenting data on risk of bias within each study.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "All three primary outcome measures appeared to favour the OPFC group over the SR group. Both length of stay and number of post-operative days to complete enteral feeding were clinically and statistically significantly longer in the SR group, with a mean difference of 8.97 days, (95% CI 2.14–15.80 days), and a mean difference of 7.19 days (95%CI 2.01–12.36 days) respectively."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies, including summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates with confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "All three primary outcome measures appeared to favour the OPFC group over the SR group. Both length of stay and number of post-operative days to complete enteral feeding were clinically and statistically significantly longer in the SR group, with a mean difference of 8.97 days, (95% CI 2.14–15.80 days), and a mean difference of 7.19 days (95%CI 2.01–12.36 days) respectively."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: No specific mention of presenting results of assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: No specific mention of additional analyses.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "Our results would appear to suggest a potential benefit to OPFC over SR. However, our conclusion that OPFC is superior to SR must still be tempered by the low quality of the available primary data, and the limitations of our study."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss the strength of the evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "This study has highlighted three key themes that recur throughout research into paediatric surgery, and which help account for the lack of a robust evidence base for clinical practice. These are; limitations of study type, limitations of methodology, and inconsistency in outcomes and definitions."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their study, including the study type, methodology, and inconsistency in outcomes and definitions.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Our results would appear to suggest a potential benefit to OPFC over SR. However, our conclusion that OPFC is superior to SR must still be tempered by the low quality of the available primary data, and the limitations of our study."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss the implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "Funding: Marian Knight is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Professorhip. This article presents independent research partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."
Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

65. Alzahem 2011: Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniotomy in infants and children: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.2%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to assess any differences in complication rates and outcome following surgery for indirect inguinal hernia between infants and children treated using the open and laparoscopic techniques. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing evidence."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research question and aim of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Retrieved articles were assessed for eligibility and data on patients, intervention, control, outcomes and methodological quality were abstracted independently by two authors. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two authors independently assessed articles and extracted data.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All potential publications from Medline (1950–June 2010), Embase (1980–June 2010), The Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2010) and ongoing trials through http://www.clinicaltrials.gov website were identified."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No specific mention of grey literature.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including unpublished studies.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No specific mention of a list of included and excluded studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Ten published studies were identified (Niyogi [19]; Tsai [20]; Koivusalo [21]; Endo [22]; Bharathi [23]; Hassan [24]; Koivusalo [25]; Chan [17]; Oue [26]; Antao [27]) in which the laparoscopic and open approaches for repair of pediatric inguinal hernias were directly compared."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of the included studies but do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The quality of the included comparative studies was assessed independently by two authors. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria for randomized controlled trials was utilized (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding and completeness of follow-up). Cohort studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale [18]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Our review’s conclusions are hampered by the quality and the small sample size of the most included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "For dichotomous outcomes, odds ratio (OR) and its associated confidence interval were calculated. For continuous outcomes, treatment effect was expressed as mean difference and its calculated standard deviation. If appropriate, meta-analysis of pooled data of the comparative studies was performed using a fixed effect model."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing publication bias.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No specific mention of conflict of interest.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniotomy in infants and children: a meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed pediatric surgical operations [1]. Open repair of an inguinal hernia has been accepted as the method of choice since it was first described more than 50 years ago due to its lower morbidity, good cosmesis, and lower rates of recurrence [2–4]. Several pediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair techniques have been introduced over the last few years [5–15]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to assess any differences in complication rates and outcome following surgery for indirect inguinal hernia between infants and children treated using the open and laparoscopic techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No specific mention of a review protocol or registration.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All comparative studies of the laparoscopic and open approaches for indirect inguinal hernia in children aged less than 19 years were selected. The primary outcome measure was the recurrence rate."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "All potential publications from Medline (1950–June 2010), Embase (1980–June 2010), The Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2010) and ongoing trials through http://www.clinicaltrials.gov website were identified."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The following subject headings (MeSH) and text word terms were utilized: inguinal hernia, laparoscopy, minimal access surgery, infant(s), neonate(s), newborn(s), child, paediatric, pediatric. No language restriction was applied."
- Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy, including the terms used.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Retrieved articles were assessed for eligibility and data on patients, intervention, control, outcomes and methodological quality were abstracted independently by two authors. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Retrieved articles were assessed for eligibility and data on patients, intervention, control, outcomes and methodological quality were abstracted independently by two authors. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome measure was the recurrence rate. Other clinically important outcomes such as rate of contralateral PPV, operative time, postoperative pain and recovery, cosmesis, postoperative testicular atrophy, postoperative hydrocele and stitch granuloma/abscess were also sought."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The quality of the included comparative studies was assessed independently by two authors. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria for randomized controlled trials was utilized (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding and completeness of follow-up). Cohort studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale [18]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "For dichotomous outcomes, odds ratio (OR) and its associated confidence interval were calculated. For continuous outcomes, treatment effect was expressed as mean difference and its calculated standard deviation."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "If appropriate, meta-analysis of pooled data of the comparative studies was performed using a fixed effect model. Review Manager 5.0.24 software was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was defined as a significant test of heterogeneity (p \ 0.1) and/or differences in the treatment effects across studies. Tests for between study heterogeneity (including the I2 test) were performed. When statistical heterogeneity existed, a random effect model was utilized."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "A sensitivity analysis was conducted where studies limited to girls, and/or with a median follow-up less than 6 months, and/or addressing a complicated hernia, and/or limited to infants were excluded and the meta-analysis of the remaining 6 comparative studies had shown a comparable recurrence rate among the groups [OR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.34–2.23; p = 0.76]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a sensitivity analysis that was conducted.
- Response: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Initial electronic search yielded 290 Medline, 216 Embase, 5 Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2010) and 7 ClinicalTrials.gov potentially relevant citations. After screening the abstracts, 48 articles were reviewed in full texts. Thirty-four articles have met the predefined inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Ten published studies were identified (Niyogi [19]; Tsai [20]; Koivusalo [21]; Endo [22]; Bharathi [23]; Hassan [24]; Koivusalo [25]; Chan [17]; Oue [26]; Antao [27]) in which the laparoscopic and open approaches for repair of pediatric inguinal hernias were directly compared."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of the included studies but do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The quality of the included comparative studies was assessed independently by two authors. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria for randomized controlled trials was utilized (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding and completeness of follow-up). Cohort studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale [18]."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "In a meta-analysis of 10 comparative studies, there was a trend towards higher recurrence rate for the laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [OR = 1.81; 95% CI 0.89–3.67; p = 0.10]."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "In a meta-analysis of 10 comparative studies, there was a trend towards higher recurrence rate for the laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [OR = 1.81; 95% CI 0.89–3.67; p = 0.10]."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "A sensitivity analysis was conducted where studies limited to girls, and/or with a median follow-up less than 6 months, and/or addressing a complicated hernia, and/or limited to infants were excluded and the meta-analysis of the remaining 6 comparative studies had shown a comparable recurrence rate among the groups [OR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.34–2.23; p = 0.76]."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of a sensitivity analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our review examined the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach in the management of inguinal hernias in infants and children. Ten comparative studies were reviewed. Although the data is limited, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a trend towards higher recurrence rate."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our review’s conclusions are hampered by the quality and the small sample size of the most included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "We were unable to identify any clear benefit of laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy over the open approach. This review brings to light the paucity of existing good-quality evidence in this area. A large-scale randomized well-powered clinical trial comparing the two approaches should be conducted to guide our practice."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No specific mention of funding.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the review.
- Response: [No]

66. Apelt 2013: Laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "By reviewing available data we aimed to establish whether laparoscopy should be the primary technique in the surgical reduction of intussusception."
Reasoning: The authors state their research question and aim, but there is no mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Results were confirmed by a second independent search by a different member of the team using matching search strings and databases."
Reasoning: The authors mention a second independent search, suggesting duplicate study selection, but there is no explicit mention of duplicate data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "An online database search for all English language articles on pediatric small bowel obstruction, intussusception and laparoscopy in PubMed, Medline and Ovid from January 1990 to April 2012 was performed."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search in multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on publication status.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Table 1 provides specific details on the selected studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table with details on the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "All 10 studies were level IIB evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine)."
Reasoning: The authors mention the level of evidence of the included studies, indicating an assessment of their scientific quality.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "This allowed this structured review to draw conclusions at the C level of evidence (UK National Health Service grading system for medical evidence and treatment recommendations), corresponding to a level II-2 treatment recommendation by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)."
Reasoning: The authors mention that the level of evidence of the included studies was considered in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Owing to the absence of any randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneous nature of studies, a formal meta-analysis was not performed."
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis due to the absence of randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneity of the studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention potential sources of support or conflicts of interest for the systematic review or the included studies.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Laparoscopic treatment of intussusception in children: A systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Background: Idiopathic intussusception is one of the most common causes of small bowel obstruction in children" [...] "Conclusion: Laparoscopy is safe and effective in the treatment of pediatric intussusception."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Idiopathic intussusception is the single most common cause of small bowel obstruction in children younger than 5 years" [...] "However, in the case of intussusception the lack of data about safety, efficacy, risks and outcome of laparoscopy has limited its use."
Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "By reviewing available data we aimed to establish whether laparoscopy should be the primary technique in the surgical reduction of intussusception."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Exclusion criteria were non-English language articles, case reports, laparoscopic-assisted enema reduction and mixed pediatric and adult populations (age cutoff 18 years)."
Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "An online database search for all English language articles on pediatric small bowel obstruction, intussusception and laparoscopy in PubMed, Medline and Ovid from January 1990 to April 2012 was performed."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date range of the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Results were confirmed by a second independent search by a different member of the team using matching search strings and databases."
Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies, but do not provide detailed information about screening and eligibility.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction or any processes for obtaining and confirming data.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "The following variables were analyzed: age, laparoscopic success rate, reason for conversion, enterotomy rate, operative time, complications, and length of stay (LOS)."
Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "Owing to the absence of any randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneous nature of studies, a formal meta-analysis was not performed."
Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures, as a meta-analysis was not performed.
Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Owing to the absence of any randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneous nature of studies, a formal meta-analysis was not performed."
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies, as a meta-analysis was not performed.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "Overall, 10 studies were identified which included a total of 276 cases of laparoscopically treated intussusception."
Reasoning: The authors give the number of studies included in the review, but do not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or excluded, nor do they provide a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Table 1 provides specific details on the selected studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table with details on the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "Ten retrospective studies treating 276 cases of laparoscopically reduced intussusception were identified. A total of 80 conversions corresponded to a 71.0% laparoscopic success rate."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each study, but do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Owing to the absence of any randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneous nature of studies, a formal meta-analysis was not performed."
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "This systematic review shows laparoscopy to be safe and effective in the treatment of pediatric intussusception" [...] "The laparoscopic approach was successful in more than 70% of cases and the overall complication rate was low (2.9%)."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "However, despite the favorable operative and postoperative course demonstrated by these data, we highlight the fact that advanced minimally invasive skills and adequate pediatric laparoscopic equipment are required for laparoscopic resolution of intussusception."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "This systematic review shows laparoscopy to be safe and effective in the treatment of pediatric intussusception" [...] "We advocate for laparoscopy to be considered the primary interventional technique for intussusception in tertiary centers with advanced pediatric minimally invasive skills."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

67. Aworanti 2014: Management of Recurrent Tracheoesophageal Fistulas: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. 
Quote: "Here, we reviewed the published treatment options, and their outcomes, for managing RTEF."
Reasoning: The authors state their research question but do not mention a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. 
Quote: "All English language articles published by August 2013, irrespective of design, describing the management of, and outcome after, RTEF in children under 18 years were reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the use of two independent data extractors or a consensus procedure for disagreements.
Response: [No]

A3. 
Quote: "A Medline, Embase, and web of science searches were performed using the keywords recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula."
Reasoning: The authors mention the databases used and the keywords, but do not provide the years searched or any supplementary search strategies.
Response: [No]

A4. 
Quote: "All English language articles published by August 2013, irrespective of design, describing the management of, and outcome after, RTEF in children under 18 years were reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors do not specify whether they included grey literature or unpublished studies in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. 
Quote: "A total of 44 papers between 1955 and 2013 described 165 patients; 57 ET and 108 OS."
Reasoning: The authors provide a total number of studies included but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. 
Quote: "A total of 23 papers between 1984 and 2012 described 57 patients undergoing some form of endoscopic treatment (ET) while 21 papers between 1955 and 2013 described 108 patients that underwent an open surgical repair."
Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies but do not provide detailed information on participants, interventions, and outcomes.
Response: [No]

A7. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention using the results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention testing for homogeneity or using a random effects model.
Response: [No]

A10. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention potential sources of support for the systematic review or the included studies.
Response: [No]


P1. 
Quote: "Management of Recurrent Tracheoesophageal Fistulas: A Systematic Review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. 
Quote: "Abstract Introduction The management of a recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula (RTEF) includes either open surgery (OS) or an endoscopic treatment (ET); the ideal option is unclear. We aim to comparatively review all published treatment options, and outcomes, for managing RTEF."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. 
Quote: "The spectrum of esophageal atresia (EA) and tracheoesopha- geal fistula (TEF) include an isolated EA, EA with a proximal and/or distal TEF and the “H” or “N” type fistula."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. 
Quote: "Here, we reviewed the published treatment options, and their outcomes, for managing RTEF."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. 
Quote: "All English language articles published by August 2013, irrespective of design, describing the management of, and outcome after, RTEF in children under 18 years were reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility but do not provide a rationale.
Response: [Yes]

P7. 
Quote: "A Medline, Embase, and web of science searches were performed using the keywords recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present a full electronic search strategy for any database.
Response: [No]

P9. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not state the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [No]

P11. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [No]

P15. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. 
Quote: "A total of 44 papers between 1955 and 2013 described 165 patients; 57 ET and 108 OS."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies included in the review but do not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [No]

P18. 
Quote: "A total of 23 papers between 1984 and 2012 described 57 patients undergoing some form of endoscopic treatment (ET) while 21 papers between 1955 and 2013 described 108 patients that underwent an open surgical repair."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study but do not provide the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present summary data for each intervention group for all outcomes considered.
Response: [No]

P21. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of each meta-analysis done.
Response: [No]

P22. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. 
Quote: "In conclusion, based on our findings on 165 published cases, OS for the repair of recurrent TEF has a low morbidity, mortality, and re-fistulation rate particularly when an interposition tissue is placed between the trachea and esophagus."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P25. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at study and outcome level.
Response: [No]

P26. 
Quote: "We recommend OS as the treatment of choice when faced with a recurrent TEF. Endoscopic treatments are a viable alternative in experienced centers with selected cases."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P27. 
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

68. Baker 2015: A systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrostomy insertion techniques in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

30 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The PRISMA statement, checklist and flowchart were referenced to achieve the highest standard in reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using the PRISMA statement, checklist, and flowchart, which suggests that they had a pre-planned methodology.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were conducted independently by two reviewers."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two reviewers independently conducted the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify all relevant studies comparing two or more gastrostomy insertion techniques in children reporting procedural-related complication rates."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a systematic search of multiple databases for relevant studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Only published data were included in our study."
- Reasoning: The authors explicitly state that only published data were included in the study.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "The search strategy for the review resulted in 22 studies meeting inclusion criteria, with 5346 participants overall."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Of the 22 studies identified, the median MINORS score of all studies was 14 (range 10–16), max = 24."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the MINORS score.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was utilized to determine the quality of studies and risk of bias."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using the MINORS index to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "This review suggests that a laparoscopic approach is affiliated with decreased patient morbidity requiring reoperation when compared to an endoscopic gastrostomy insertion approach."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions are based on the results of the included studies, which were assessed for quality.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was preformed for primary and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.1 (Copenhagen)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe using a meta-analysis to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Publication bias was evaluated through the generation of a funnel plot of standard error against the log odds ratio."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing publication bias using a funnel plot.
- Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on potential conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "A systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrostomy insertion techniques in children"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Background: Gastrostomy tubes are inserted via multiple techniques to provide a route for enteral feeding in the pediatric population. This review compares the rate of major complications and resource utilization associated with the various insertion techniques."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Gastrostomy tube placement remains a highly popular intervention with a number of indications, in both adult and pediatric populations. Since initially introduced in 1986 as an open surgical approach, it has evolved into a procedure performed using multiple different techniques by several different operators, including surgeons, gastrointestinal endoscopists and interventional radiologists."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This report evaluates the available literature summarizing complication rates and resource utilization for gastrostomy techniques in children."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the research question, including the participants (children), interventions (gastrostomy techniques), and outcomes (complication rates and resource utilization).
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All studies that compared postoperative outcomes in two or more gastrostomy placement techniques in a pediatric population were included. The primary outcome of interest was postoperative complication resulting in death or requiring operative management within one year — our working definition of a major complication."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify all relevant studies comparing two or more gastrostomy insertion techniques in children reporting procedural-related complication rates."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We used exploded Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keywords to search for the following themes: pediatrics, open gastrostomy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, interventional radiologically guided gastrostomy, and laparoscopic gastrostomy."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used for the databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All titles and abstracts identified in the electronic database were independently screened for relevance and categorized as relevant, possibly relevant or irrelevant, based on our inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Data extraction was conducted by 2 reviewers (LB & AB) using a predefined data extraction worksheet."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following information was extracted from each article: title, authors, number of centers involved, geographical location, patient demographics, the interventions being compared, complications assessed, markers of resource utilization, as well as the reported findings of the study."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was utilized to determine the quality of studies and risk of bias."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Postoperative morbidity necessitating operative management or resulting in mortality was analyzed as dichotomous data, with odds ratios calculated."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was preformed for primary and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.1 (Copenhagen)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Publication bias was evaluated through the generation of a funnel plot of standard error against the log odds ratio."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the assessment of publication bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The search strategy for the review resulted in 22 studies meeting inclusion criteria, with 5346 participants overall."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Of the 22 studies identified, the median MINORS score of all studies was 14 (range 10–16), max = 24."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide the citations.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was utilized to determine the quality of studies and risk of bias."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Studies comparing laparoscopic gastrostomy and PEG revealed a significant increase in major complications with PEG (n = 10 studies, OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17–0.51, p b 0.0001)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group, along with a forest plot.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Studies comparing laparoscopic gastrostomy and PEG revealed a significant increase in major complications with PEG (n = 10 studies, OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17–0.51, p b 0.0001)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Publication bias was evaluated through the generation of a funnel plot of standard error against the log odds ratio."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the assessment of publication bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This review suggests that a laparoscopic approach is affiliated with decreased patient morbidity requiring reoperation when compared to an endoscopic gastrostomy insertion approach."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Additional limitations to this review include the retrospective nature of the majority of the studies included."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "While definitive, ‘level one evidence’ is lacking, these results suggest that any advantages in operative time and resource utilization associated with PEG appear outweighed by the increased safety profile of laparoscopic gastrostomy insertion."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on funding sources or other support for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

69. Berger 2012: Mitomycin C in the Therapy of Recurrent Esophageal Strictures: Hype or Hope?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.3%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Methods Systematic review of publications on the topical application of Mitomycin C in children with persistent esophageal stricture."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review but do not provide a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The current literature was screened for publications regarding the application of Mitomycin C in esophageal stenosis and stricture with special emphasis on pediatric data."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a literature search but do not provide details about the databases used, the years covered, or the search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether grey literature was included in the search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "We identified 11 publications including 31 cases."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of publications and cases but do not provide detailed characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention an assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention the methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention an assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Mitomycin C in the Therapy of Recurrent Esophageal Strictures: Hype or Hope?"
- Reasoning: The title does not identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis.
- Answer: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Introduction Esophageal strictures refractory to conservative treatment represent a major problem in children. The application of Mitomycin C to the site of stricture has been introduced, but the experience with this novel approach remains very limited. Methods Systematic review of publications on the topical application of Mitomycin C in children with persistent esophageal stricture. Results We identified 11 publications including 31 cases. The underlying cause of stricture was caustic ingestion in 19 (61.2%), esophageal surgery in 7 (22.6%), and others in 5 children (16.2%). The median age of the patients was 48 months (range 4 to 276 months). In the majority of cases cotton pledgets soaked in solution of Mitomycin C were applied endoscopically. Various other techniques such as drug-eluting stents were used. Mitomycin C was applied from 1 to 12 times within intervals from 1 to 12 weeks. The concentrations of Mitomycin C varied considerably between 0.1 and 1 mg/mL. After a mean follow-up time of 22 (6 to 60) months complete relief of symptoms was reported for 21 children (67.7%), and 6 (19.4%) had a partial relief. In four children (12.9%) Mitomycin C treatment failed. No direct or indirect adverse effects were reported. Conclusion The short-term results of topical Mitomycin C application for refractory esophageal stricture reported in the literature are very encouraging. Prospective studies are mandatory to determine the optimal time points, dosage, and modalities of treatment before a recommendation can be given."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions. However, it does not mention study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, limitations, and implications of key findings.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "For centuries, esophageal strictures have been recognized as an important health problem in children. The etiology includes surgery for malformations of the foregut such as esophageal atresia (EA) and tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF), the ingestion of caustic agents, severe gastroesophageal reflux, and other disease entities."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In this article, we report the results of a systematic analysis of all published pediatric cases regarding the therapeutic application of Mitomycin C in esophageal stricture and stenosis."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the questions being addressed but does not reference participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Inclusion criteria were publications in peer-reviewed journals accessible online via PubMed written in the English, German, or Spanish language. Exclusion criteria were publications on adult patients."
- Reasoning: The authors specify some study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The current literature was screened for publications regarding the application of Mitomycin C in esophageal stenosis and stricture with special emphasis on pediatric data."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources but do not provide details about the databases used, the dates of coverage, or the date last searched.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present a full electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not state the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data were collected on the patient population treated, indication, description of stricture, technique of application, dosage, number of and interval between applications, complications, and outcome."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "We identified 11 publications including 31 cases."
- Reasoning: The authors give the number of studies included in the review but do not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or excluded, and do not provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "We identified 11 publications including 31 cases. The underlying cause of stricture was caustic ingestion in 19 (61.2%), esophageal surgery in 7 (22.6%), and others in 5 children (16.2%). The median age of the patients was 48 months (range 4 to 276 months)."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics for which data were extracted but do not provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The early results of topical Mitomycin C application for the treatment of severe, recurrent esophageal strictures refractory to repeated balloon dilations are encouraging."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings but do not discuss the strength of evidence for each main outcome or their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The literature reviewed supports the need of larger studies. Questions not yet answered include technical aspects such as the proper and safe way of application, the optimal indication, time point of initial treatment, dosage, as well as the number of applications. All patients who undergo topical application of Mitomycin C for esophageal strictures should be included in long-term follow-up programs."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "M. Berger was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a source of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

70. Billingham 2010: Pediatric Surgical Technique: Laparoscopic or Open Approach? A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 1 0 1 1 0 NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.4%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Objectives & The laparoscopic treatment of pediatric populations remains controversial. In order to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this surgical approach a number of outcome measures for laparoscopic and open techniques were analyzed in a comparative fashion."
Reasoning: The authors have stated their objectives and the measures they will use to evaluate the studies, but there is no explicit mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "To complete this study a comprehensive literature review was conducted. All available electronic databases including the British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), Intute: Health & Life Sciences, MEDLINE, PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Web of Science and IgentaConnect, were systematically searched for each procedure, between the period 1992 – 2009 for all English and non– English language articles."
Reasoning: The authors have described a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about whether grey literature was included in the search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "The study design and methodological quality of the included studies are summarized in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors mention a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "A level of scientific evidence was assigned to each study identified using the set grading criteria outlined by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [33, 35] : 1: Prospective, randomized comparative trials, 1A: Systematic review or meta-analysis 2: Prospective, non-randomized comparative trials and 3: Retrospective, observational studies. Only level 1, 1A and 2 studies were included in our analyses."
Reasoning: The authors have assessed the scientific quality of the included studies using a grading criteria.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "The validity of the results of this review largely depends on the validity of the included studies. Many of the included studies failed to take all the steps necessary to avoid bias."
Reasoning: The authors have considered the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Meta-analysis was performed in line with recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration, the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) and MOOSE initiative guidelines, where appropriate."
Reasoning: The authors have described the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Conflict of interest: None"
Reasoning: The authors have stated that there is no conflict of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Pediatric Surgical Technique: Laparoscopic or Open Approach? A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract & Introduction: The laparoscopic treatment of pediatric populations remains controversial. This review was conducted to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for a variety of surgical indications in pediatric populations. Method/ Design: A computerized comprehensive search supplemented by a manual review of the literature was performed for all peer-reviewed publications comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomy, fundoplication and hernia repair cohorts. Outcomes of interest were length of stay (LOS), operating room (OR) time, complication rates and total hospital costs; aggregation of outcome rates was performed with the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: A total of 24 articles were identified that met the search and inclusion criteria. LOS was found to be significantly reduced in favor of the laparoscopic approach, with a weighted mean difference of − 1.44 days, although the OR time was significantly increased, with a weighted mean difference of + 12.8 min. Laparoscopic intervention was associated with a significantly reduced complication rate compared to the open approach (10.6 vs. 15.6 % ). Total hospital costs of the laparoscopic approaches were found to be insignificantly increased compared to the open techniques. Conclusion: This review further supports the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in pediatric populations, demonstrating that the three types laparoscopic procedures reviewed resulted in better patient outcomes compared to open procedures, in the form of reduced LOS and overall complication rates. Increased utilization of this approach may prove beneficial to pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Introduction & Pediatric surgeons were among the pioneers of laparoscopic surgery in the early 1970s, but the vast potential of this “ minimally invasive ” approach to treat neonates, infants and children with surgical conditions has lagged behind its adult counterpart and has only recently begun to be realized [20] . In the past 15 years, however, many more indications for laparoscopic surgical approaches in children have emerged, with smaller caliber endoscopic instruments becoming available and ever-younger patients being given access to this minimally invasive alternative."
Reasoning: The introduction provides the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "Objectives & The laparoscopic treatment of pediatric populations remains controversial. In order to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this surgical approach a number of outcome measures for laparoscopic and open techniques were analyzed in a comparative fashion. These outcome measures included: ▶ Length of stay (LOS) after the procedure, ▶ Operating room (OR) time, ▶ Frequency of postoperative complications and ▶ Total hospital costs."
Reasoning: The objectives section provides an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Assessment of study eligibility Each article was independently assessed for eligibility using the following criteria: Inclusion criteria ▶ Prospective randomized or prospective non-randomized study format only. ▶ Operative results reported for a “ pediatric population ” , using the words “children, infants or neonates” to describe the study group and including infants, neonates or children (or combinations of the three). ▶ Study subjects under 17 years of age only. ▶ Comparison of laparoscopic and open techniques. ▶ Report on at least one of the outcome measures mentioned previously. ▶ Contain a previously unreported patient group (if patient material was reported more than once, the most informative and recent article was chosen). ▶ When 2 studies were reported by the same institution, the analysis included either the one of better quality, or the most recent publication. Exclusion criteria ▶ Studies in which the outcomes of interest were not reported for the 2 techniques or they were impossible to calculate based on the published results. ▶ Studies that used variations on the standard laparoscopic technique (including hybrid procedures, single-trocar technique procedures). ▶ Studies that included conversions from laparoscopy to open surgery in their analyses (unless individual converted subjects were identifiable and could be excluded from the analysis). ▶ Studies that used variations on the standard open technique (including mini-laparotomy procedures). ▶ Studies in which the standard deviation of the mean for continuous outcomes of interest (length of stay and operative time) were not determinable."
Reasoning: The authors have specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "To complete this study a comprehensive literature review was conducted. All available electronic databases including the British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), Intute: Health & Life Sciences, MEDLINE, PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Web of Science and IgentaConnect, were systematically searched for each procedure, between the period 1992 – 2009 for all English and non– English language articles."
Reasoning: The authors have described all the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "The keywords used during the search were: “endoscopic surgery, fundoplication, appendectomy and appendicectomy, inguinal hernia, outcomes, minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, endoscopy, laparotomy, open surgery, effectiveness, costs, cost-effectiveness, paediatric and pediatric, infant and neonate” . No limits were used."
Reasoning: The authors have presented the search strategy used, including keywords and the fact that no limits were used.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility using the following criteria: Inclusion criteria ▶ Prospective randomized or prospective non-randomized study format only. ▶ Operative results reported for a “ pediatric population ” , using the words “children, infants or neonates” to describe the study group and including infants, neonates or children (or combinations of the three). ▶ Study subjects under 17 years of age only. ▶ Comparison of laparoscopic and open techniques. ▶ Report on at least one of the outcome measures mentioned previously. ▶ Contain a previously unreported patient group (if patient material was reported more than once, the most informative and recent article was chosen). ▶ When 2 studies were reported by the same institution, the analysis included either the one of better quality, or the most recent publication. Exclusion criteria ▶ Studies in which the outcomes of interest were not reported for the 2 techniques or they were impossible to calculate based on the published results. ▶ Studies that used variations on the standard laparoscopic technique (including hybrid procedures, single-trocar technique procedures). ▶ Studies that included conversions from laparoscopy to open surgery in their analyses (unless individual converted subjects were identifiable and could be excluded from the analysis). ▶ Studies that used variations on the standard open technique (including mini-laparotomy procedures). ▶ Studies in which the standard deviation of the mean for continuous outcomes of interest (length of stay and operative time) were not determinable."
Reasoning: The authors have stated the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "These outcome measures included: ▶ Length of stay (LOS) after the procedure, ▶ Operating room (OR) time, ▶ Frequency of postoperative complications and ▶ Total hospital costs."
Reasoning: The authors have listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "A level of scientific evidence was assigned to each study identified using the set grading criteria outlined by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [33, 35] : 1: Prospective, randomized comparative trials, 1A: Systematic review or meta-analysis 2: Prospective, non-randomized comparative trials and 3: Retrospective, observational studies. Only level 1, 1A and 2 studies were included in our analyses."
Reasoning: The authors have described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "For continuous variables (total hospital costs, LOS and OR time), statistical analysis was carried out using weighted mean differences (WMD) as the summary statistic, comparing the laparoscopic treatment groups with the reference (open surgery) groups using the Mantel-Haenszel method."
Reasoning: The authors have stated the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Meta-analysis was performed in line with recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration, the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) and MOOSE initiative guidelines, where appropriate."
Reasoning: The authors have described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "A total of 24 articles were identified that met the search and inclusion criteria. 16 appendectomy, 4 fundoplication and 4 inguinal hernia studies comparing procedural outcomes method were included."
Reasoning: The authors have given the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "The study design and methodological quality of the included studies are summarized in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors mention a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "A total of 24 articles were identified that met the search and inclusion criteria. LOS was found to be significantly reduced in favor of the laparoscopic approach, with a weighted mean difference of − 1.44 days, although the OR time was significantly increased, with a weighted mean difference of + 12.8 min. Laparoscopic intervention was associated with a significantly reduced complication rate compared to the open approach (10.6 vs. 15.6 % ). Total hospital costs of the laparoscopic approaches were found to be insignificantly increased compared to the open techniques."
Reasoning: The authors have presented summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Clearly, LOS is significantly reduced in favor of the laparoscopic approach, with an overall weighted mean difference for LOS of − 1.44 days (95 % CI, − 1.89 to − 0.99, p < 0.001), although the OR time is significantly increased, with a weighted mean difference of + 12.8 min (95 % CI, + 3.7 to + 21.9, p = 0.006), favoring the open surgical technique."
Reasoning: The authors have presented the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "This review strengthens the use of MIS in pediatric populations, demonstrating that the three laparoscopic procedures reviewed showed better patient outcomes compared to open procedures in the form of reduced LOS and complication rates."
Reasoning: The authors have summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "The validity of the results of this review largely depends on the validity of the included studies. Many of the included studies failed to take all the steps necessary to avoid bias. There may well be an inherent bias in the analyses, which are likely to favor the ‘newer’ MIS/laparoscopic technique. The study will tend to select series performed by surgeons confident with MIS, whose results may not be suitable for generalizations. Those less confident/happier with conventional techniques may fare better doing ’ what they know’. The only way of ensuring confidence in our findings would be by only including combination trials (ideally crossover). Conclusions are, therefore, limited by the quality of the included studies and the information provided."
Reasoning: The authors have discussed the limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "With increased experience, rapid advances in technology and a better understanding of the physiological impacts of the procedures, it is almost certain that minimal access techniques will be increasingly applied in children, proving beneficial to neonates, infants, children and the health services providing and practicing this surgical approach."
Reasoning: The authors have provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information about the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

71. Black 2013: Bariatric surgery for obese children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 NA 1 NA 0


LLM response

23 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. 
Quote: "We aimed to (i) systematically review the literature on bariatric surgery in children and adolescents; (ii) meta-analyse change in body mass index (BMI) 1-year post-surgery and (iii) report complications, co-morbidity resolution and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)."
Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their research question and objectives before conducting the review.
Response: [Yes]

A2. 
Quote: "Two authors independently screened the abstracts and extraction was verified by a second author (JAB and RKS)."
Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection and data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. 
Quote: "The indexed reference libraries EMBASE and Medline were searched between January 1955 and January 2013 using the search terms presented in Table 1, using mapped and exploded terms. Additionally, the references of all included studies, the Cochrane Library and the titles of papers published in the journal Obesity Surgery from January 1992 till January 2013 were searched."
Reasoning: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases and supplementary strategies.
Response: [Yes]

A4. 
Quote: "Only papers written in English were retrieved."
Reasoning: The authors did not explicitly state whether they searched for grey literature or unpublished studies.
Response: [No]

A5. 
Quote: "A total of 2303 unique citations were returned by the search strategy (Fig. 1). Of these, 2185 were excluded based on abstract review."
Reasoning: The authors provided a list of included studies but did not provide a list of excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. 
Quote: "We used a standard data extraction method to collect the following information on each study: years during which the surgery was performed, authors, country, study design, mean age and variance of study participants, type of surgery, gender distribution, complications, co-morbidities, pre-/post-surgery BMI with variance, number of participants, length of follow-up and loss to follow-up."
Reasoning: The authors provided detailed characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. 
Quote: "Change in BMI a year after surgery was meta-analysed using a random effects model."
Reasoning: The authors did not provide information on how they assessed the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not assess the scientific quality of the included studies, so they could not have used it in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [NA]

A9. 
Quote: "The average weighted mean BMI difference from baseline to 1 year was -13.5 kg m-2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.1, -11.9). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 76.1% and P < 0.001), largely because of the differences among surgery types and populations."
Reasoning: The authors used appropriate methods to combine the findings of the studies and assessed their homogeneity.
Response: [Yes]

A10. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not assess the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [NA]

A11. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any potential sources of support or conflict of interest for the systematic review or the included studies.
Response: [No]


P1. 
Quote: "Bariatric surgery for obese children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. 
Quote: "Summary: The number of obese young people continues to rise, with a corresponding increase in extreme obesity and paediatric-adolescent bariatric surgery. We aimed to (i) systematically review the literature on bariatric surgery in children and adolescents; (ii) meta-analyse change in body mass index (BMI) 1-year post-surgery and (iii) report complications, co-morbidity resolution and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. 
Quote: "The global prevalence of obesity is rising in children and adolescents (1)."
Reasoning: The authors described the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. 
Quote: "We aimed to (i) systematically review the literature on bariatric surgery in children and adolescents; (ii) meta-analyse change in body mass index (BMI) 1-year post-surgery and (iii) report complications, co-morbidity resolution and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)."
Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. 
Quote: "Studies were included if (i) they assessed BMI before and a minimum of six months after individuals predominately received AGB, RYGB, BPD or SG and (ii) the mean age of the population was between 6 and 18 years at study entry (18)."
Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. 
Quote: "The indexed reference libraries EMBASE and Medline were searched between January 1955 and January 2013 using the search terms presented in Table 1, using mapped and exploded terms. Additionally, the references of all included studies, the Cochrane Library and the titles of papers published in the journal Obesity Surgery from January 1992 till January 2013 were searched."
Reasoning: The authors described all information sources in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. 
Quote: "The indexed reference libraries EMBASE and Medline were searched between January 1955 and January 2013 using the search terms presented in Table 1, using mapped and exploded terms."
Reasoning: The authors presented the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
Response: [Yes]

P9. 
Quote: "Two authors independently screened the abstracts and extraction was verified by a second author (JAB and RKS)."
Reasoning: The authors stated the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. 
Quote: "Two authors independently screened the abstracts and extraction was verified by a second author (JAB and RKS)."
Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. 
Quote: "We used a standard data extraction method to collect the following information on each study: years during which the surgery was performed, authors, country, study design, mean age and variance of study participants, type of surgery, gender distribution, complications, co-morbidities, pre-/post-surgery BMI with variance, number of participants, length of follow-up and loss to follow-up."
Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. 
Quote: "Change in BMI a year after surgery was meta-analysed using a random effects model."
Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measure.
Response: [Yes]

P14. 
Quote: "The average weighted mean BMI difference from baseline to 1 year was -13.5 kg m-2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.1, -11.9). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 76.1% and P < 0.001), largely because of the differences among surgery types and populations."
Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. 
Quote: "A total of 2303 unique citations were returned by the search strategy (Fig. 1). Of these, 2185 were excluded based on abstract review."
Reasoning: The authors gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. 
Quote: "We used a standard data extraction method to collect the following information on each study: years during which the surgery was performed, authors, country, study design, mean age and variance of study participants, type of surgery, gender distribution, complications, co-morbidities, pre-/post-surgery BMI with variance, number of participants, length of follow-up and loss to follow-up."
Reasoning: The authors presented characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. 
Quote: "Mean BMI at baseline ranged from 38.5 to 60.2 kg m-2 (mean 47.9 kg m-2), and at follow-up from 25.2 to 41.5 kg m-2 (mean 34.7 kg m-2). All studies reported decreases in BMI (Table 2)."
Reasoning: The authors presented summary data for each intervention group for all outcomes considered.
Response: [Yes]

P21. 
Quote: "The average weighted mean BMI difference from baseline to 1 year was -13.5 kg m-2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.1, -11.9). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 76.1% and P < 0.001), largely because of the differences among surgery types and populations."
Reasoning: The authors presented results of each meta-analysis done.
Response: [Yes]

P22. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. 
Quote: "Bariatric surgery leads to significant short-term weight loss in obese children and adolescents. However, the risks of complications are not well defined in the literature."
Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. 
Quote: "Bariatric surgery leads to significant short-term weight loss in obese children and adolescents. However, the risks of complications are not well defined in the literature."
Reasoning: The authors discussed limitations at study and outcome level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. 
Quote: "Bariatric surgery leads to significant short-term weight loss in obese children and adolescents. However, the risks of complications are not well defined in the literature. Long-term, prospectively designed studies, with clear reporting of complications and co-morbidity resolution, alongside measures of HRQol, are needed to firmly establish the harms and benefits of bariatric surgery in children and adolescents."
Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. 
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

72. Borruto 2010: Laparoscopic vs open varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: review of the recent literature and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

18 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of our study is to identify clinical evidence on the reliability of the laparoscopic technique compared to the open techniques, with the end points of recurrence rate and hydrocele formation."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and inclusion criteria.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A literature search was performed, using Medline and Pubmed database, on all articles published during the last 10 years (2000-2009), reporting on varicocele treatments."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases used and the time frame for the search, but do not provide keywords or supplementary strategies.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "We recorded 37 studies, but 26 of these were excluded from our analysis using the following criteria: (1) studies that were not relevant, in which outcome of interest were not reported or were impossible to calculate from the results; and (2) studies not concerning an adolescent population."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included and excluded, but do not provide a list of these studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Eleven studies published between 2000 and 2009 matched the inclusion criteria, comparing varicocele treatments in the pediatric population, and reporting the incidence of complications."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide detailed information such as participant demographics, interventions, and outcomes.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Because of nonhomogeneous studies, we could not apply the meta-analysis method to all studies simultaneously, but we analyzed different meta-analysis grouping studies with similar features."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their approach to combining the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic vs open varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: review of the recent literature and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: Laparoscopic varicocelectomy has gained popularity in recent years. The aim of this study was to identify clinical evidence about the reliability of this technique in the recent literature. Methods: We performed a Medline search for articles published during the last 10 years, using the key words “varicocele,” “treatment,” and “adolescent.” As limits, we used last 10 years, adolescent, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and multicenter retrospective and prospective studies. The results were investigated in recurrence and hydrocele formation. Results: We pooled 37 studies, but 26 of these were excluded because they were neither relevant nor concerned an adolescent population. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in recurrence rate and postoperative hydrocele rate. In the laparoscopic group, the incidence of recurrence was higher in the patients undergoing artery ligation compared to patients undergoing artery and venous ligation. Furthermore, a lower rate of postoperative hydrocele was recorded in patients undergoing dye injections before laparoscopic ligation. Conclusions: Meta-analysis and literature analysis showed that the results after laparoscopic varicocelectomy are comparable to other surgical procedures. The laparoscopic approach has the advantage to treat simultaneously bilateral varicocele."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Varicocele is generally considered the most common correctable cause of male infertility [1,2]. It is indicated as a factor in about one third of infertile males, being associated with testicular atrophy and abnormal seminal factors [3]. Varicocele occurs in 10% to 15% of children and adolescents [4,5]. Several treatment options have been used, including spermatic vein sclerotherapy or embolization, open inguinal ligation of the spermatic vein, subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy, and, most recently, laparoscopy, but the ideal method for varicocele treatment is still controversial [6-8]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about varicocele and its treatment.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of our study is to identify clinical evidence on the reliability of the laparoscopic technique compared to the open techniques, with the end points of recurrence rate and hydrocele formation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, including the participants (children and adolescents with varicocele), interventions (laparoscopic vs open techniques), comparisons (reliability of the techniques), and outcomes (recurrence rate and hydrocele formation).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "A literature search was performed, using Medline and Pubmed database, on all articles published during the last 10 years (2000-2009), reporting on varicocele treatments. The following key words were used: “varicocele,” “treatment,” and “adolescent.” Searches were also performed using the following as limits: last 10 years, adolescent, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and multicenter retrospective and prospective studies."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A literature search was performed, using Medline and Pubmed database, on all articles published during the last 10 years (2000-2009), reporting on varicocele treatments."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases used and the time frame for the search, but do not mention the date of the last search.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A literature search was performed, using Medline and Pubmed database, on all articles published during the last 10 years (2000-2009), reporting on varicocele treatments. The following key words were used: “varicocele,” “treatment,” and “adolescent.” Searches were also performed using the following as limits: last 10 years, adolescent, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and multicenter retrospective and prospective studies."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy for the databases used, including the keywords and limits.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "We recorded 37 studies, but 26 of these were excluded from our analysis using the following criteria: (1) studies that were not relevant, in which outcome of interest were not reported or were impossible to calculate from the results; and (2) studies not concerning an adolescent population."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies, including the criteria for exclusion.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Articles with data regarding recurrence, complications (hydrocele, hypotrophy, atrophy), and, if available, semen parameters after treatment were analyzed."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought, but do not define them or mention any assumptions or simplifications made.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The results of continuous variables were reported as mean ± SD, and the statistical difference was calculated using the Student's t test. The statistical difference of percentages was calculated by Pearson's χ2."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Because of nonhomogeneous studies, we could not apply the meta-analysis method to all studies simultaneously, but we analyzed different meta-analysis grouping studies with similar features."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "We recorded 37 studies, but 26 of these were excluded from our analysis using the following criteria: (1) studies that were not relevant, in which outcome of interest were not reported or were impossible to calculate from the results; and (2) studies not concerning an adolescent population."
- Reasoning: The authors give the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, but do not provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Eleven studies published between 2000 and 2009 matched the inclusion criteria, comparing varicocele treatments in the pediatric population, and reporting the incidence of complications."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide detailed information or citations for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Eleven studies published between 2000 and 2009 matched the inclusion criteria, comparing varicocele treatments in the pediatric population, and reporting the incidence of complications."
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in recurrence rate and postoperative hydrocele rate."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, but do not provide confidence intervals or measures of consistency.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "From the analysis performed in our study, results after laparoscopic technique are similar to that after open inguinal approaches (grade A level of evidence 1C). The injection of blue dye before laparoscopic ligation significantly reduces the incidence of hydrocele formation (grade A level of evidence 1C). Ligation of both artery and veins during laparoscopic varicocelectomy significantly reduces the recurrence rate (grade A level of evidence 1C)."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "From the analysis performed in our study, results after laparoscopic technique are similar to that after open inguinal approaches (grade A level of evidence 1C). The injection of blue dye before laparoscopic ligation significantly reduces the incidence of hydrocele formation (grade A level of evidence 1C). Ligation of both artery and veins during laparoscopic varicocelectomy significantly reduces the recurrence rate (grade A level of evidence 1C)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, but do not discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
- Answer: [No]

73. Castagnetti 2010: Surgical Management of Primary Severe Hypospadias in Children: Systematic 20-Year Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 NA 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A systematic review of the literature was performed in December 2009 according to the criteria of Oxman."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review but do not provide details about a pre-established protocol or research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Three doctors reviewed the abstracts. Articles relevant to the topic of the review were selected by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that three doctors reviewed the abstracts and selected relevant articles by consensus, indicating a duplicate study selection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Four databases, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, were searched using a single term, “hypospadias,” as it defines accurately the subject of this review."
- Reasoning: The authors searched four databases using a single term, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "We included in this review only series containing detailed results after primary repair of severe hypospadias or after curvature correction in patients with primary severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a detailed or aggregated form.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "These studies were generally of low quality (69.5% surgical series). Even the 18 controlled studies were fraught with several methodological flaws, limiting their validity."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the included studies, but do not provide a detailed assessment for each study.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The present systematic review shows the weak evidence backing current management of primary severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the quality of the evidence in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Surgical Management of Primary Severe Hypospadias in Children: Systematic 20-Year Review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The abstract is not provided in the text.
- Answer: [NA]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The aim of the present review was to assess the results of studies published during the last 20 years on the primary repair of severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of the present review was to assess the results of studies published during the last 20 years on the primary repair of severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an objective for the review, but do not explicitly address the PICOS components.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "We included in this review only series containing detailed results after primary repair of severe hypospadias or after curvature correction in patients with primary severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Four databases, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, were searched using a single term, “hypospadias,” as it defines accurately the subject of this review."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Four databases, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, were searched using a single term, “hypospadias,” as it defines accurately the subject of this review."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy, but do not provide enough detail for it to be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Three doctors reviewed the abstracts. Articles relevant to the topic of the review were selected by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not list or define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "These studies were generally of low quality (69.5% surgical series). Even the 18 controlled studies were fraught with several methodological flaws, limiting their validity."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the studies, but do not describe the methods used for this assessment.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "We identified 69 studies for review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies included in the review, but do not give numbers of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, nor reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present the characteristics for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present summary data or effect estimates for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Given the low quality and limited validity of the studies available, we did not attempt any meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This systematic review demonstrates the weak evidence supporting current management of primary severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of the evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "As is expected, this type of review is fraught with methodological imperfections."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "This systematic review demonstrates the weak evidence supporting current management of primary severe hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

74. Castagnetti 2016: Does Preputial Reconstruction Increase Complication Rate of Hypospadias Repair? 20-Year Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A systematic review of the literature published after June 1995 was performed in June 2015 in agreement with the PRISMA statement."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA statement, but they do not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Three doctors reviewed separately the abstracts. Papers relevant to the topic of the review were selected by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that three doctors independently reviewed the abstracts and selected relevant papers by consensus, indicating a duplicate study selection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Three databases, namely, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and The Cochrane library, were searched for using the free text “hypospadias repair,” in all fields of the records for MEDLINE/PubMed search, and in the Title and Topic fields for the Web of Science and Cochrane library searches."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across three databases using specific keywords.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Of the original 3692 records, 20 (0.6%) studies that matched the criteria for inclusion in the review were finally selected."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included in the review, but they do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Characteristics of included studies are detailed in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Papers were categorized according to the Oxford Level of Evidence Working Group 2011 levels of evidence (LOEs) for therapy studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the quality of the included studies using the Oxford Levels of Evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Although this review encompasses the best available evidence, some drawbacks should be considered."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their review and the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Data analysis was subdivided into two parts. First, we performed a cumulative analysis of complications of PR in the reported series. Second, a meta-analysis of case–control and randomized studies comparing PR vs. circumcision was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods they used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Funnel Plot did not show evidence of significant bias among studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a conflict of interest statement.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Does Preputial reconstruction increase complication rate of hypospadias repair? 20-Year systematic review and Meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "introduction: We performed a systematic review of the literature on preputial reconstruction (PR) during hypospadias repair to determine the cumulative risk of preputial skin complications and the influence of PR on urethroplasty complications, namely, fistula formation and overall reoperation rate of the repair."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Preputial asymmetry is one of the components of hypospadias. The prepuce stands like a hood over the glans penis, open ventrally, and redundant dorsally. Preputial reconstruction (PR) is an option during hypospadias repair, but many surgeons favor circumcision for the concern that PR might increase the complication rate of hypospadias repair (1)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We performed a systematic review of the literature on PR during hypospadias repair to determine the cumulative risk of specific complications related to the procedure. Moreover, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing urethroplasty complications and reoperation rates in patients undergoing hypospadias repair associated with PR vs. circumcision to test the hypothesis that circumcision is associated with a lower rate of complications related to the urethroplasty, namely, fistula rate, and a lower reoperation rate."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research questions being addressed, with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "In the review, we included only studies reporting data on complications of PR (dehiscence of reconstructed prepuce and phimosis), on urethroplasty complications (fistula formation), and on reoperation rates in patients undergoing hypospadias repair with preservation of the prepuce."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Three databases, namely, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and The Cochrane library, were searched for using the free text “hypospadias repair,” in all fields of the records for MEDLINE/PubMed search, and in the Title and Topic fields for the Web of Science and Cochrane library searches."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in their search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Three databases, namely, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and The Cochrane library, were searched for using the free text “hypospadias repair,” in all fields of the records for MEDLINE/PubMed search, and in the Title and Topic fields for the Web of Science and Cochrane library searches. For MEDLINE/PubMed search, “English,” “Humans,” “Males,” and “Publication date from June 1995 to June 2015” were considered, as limits."
- Reasoning: The authors present their full electronic search strategy for multiple databases, including the limits used.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Three doctors reviewed separately the abstracts. Papers relevant to the topic of the review were selected by consensus. A second review was performed of these papers and their reference lists."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction from reports or any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "For data extraction, dehiscence was considered irrespec- tive of whether partial or complete. Since many reconstructed prepuces are non-retractile soon after surgery, but retractility can spontaneously improve over time, secondary phimosis was defined as a phimosis needing circumcision during follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Papers were categorized according to the Oxford Level of Evidence Working Group 2011 levels of evidence (LOEs) for therapy studies including LOE 1, systematic review of rand- omized trials; LOE 2, randomized trial or observational study with dramatic effect; LOE 3, non-randomized controlled cohort or follow-up study; LOE 4, case series, case–control study, or historically controlled study; or LOE 5, mechanism-based reasoning."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (OR 95% CI) were calculated to determine the influence of PR on the selected outcome."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Data analysis was subdivided into two parts. First, we performed a cumulative analysis of complications of PR in the reported series. Second, a meta-analysis of case–control and randomized studies comparing PR vs. circumcision was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Funnel Plot did not show evidence of significant bias among studies."
- Reasoning: The authors specify their assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Of the original 3692 records, 20 (0.6%) studies that matched the criteria for inclusion in the review were finally selected."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Characteristics of included studies are detailed in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "A meta-analysis of seven studies comparing patients undergoing PR vs. circumcision showed no increased risk of urethral fistula formation associated with PR, odds ratio (OR) (Mantel–Haenszel, Fixed effect, 95% CI), 1.25 (0.80–1.97)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies, including effect estimates and confidence intervals, but they do not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or a forest plot.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "A meta-analysis of seven studies comparing patients undergoing PR vs. circumcision showed no increased risk of urethral fistula formation associated with PR, odds ratio (OR) (Mantel–Haenszel, Fixed effect, 95% CI), 1.25 (0.80–1.97)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Funnel Plot did not show evidence of significant bias among studies."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This systematic review shows that according to available evidence PR carries an 8% risk of specific complications, whereas it does not seem to increase the risk of urethroplasty complications and the overall reoperation rate of hypospadias repairs."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of their review and discuss the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Although this review encompasses the best available evidence, some drawbacks should be considered. Results of systematic reviews are unavoidably dependent on the criteria chosen to select the studies and the quality of the studies included."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Preputial reconstruction is an option particularly in patients with distal hypospadias without associated penile curvature. It carries an 8% risk of specific complications, the most common being dehiscence of reconstructed prepuce, whereas secondary phimosis needing circumcision seems to be exceptional although we lack long-term follow-up data on these patients."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

75. Chan 2014 (Pediatr Surg Int): Ideal timing of orchiopexy: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

23 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to determine, based on a systematic review, the most favorable age at which orchiopexy should be performed."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated the research question and aim of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two researchers quality assessed each study using the following tools: AMSTAR (systematic reviews), Jadad (RCTs), and MINORS (non-RCTs)."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two researchers were involved in the quality assessment of the studies, but it is not clear if they also performed study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 onwards), Embase (1980 onwards), and CINAHL (1982 onwards) to find relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "We found one relevant systematic review, one RCT, and 30 non-RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Two researchers quality assessed each study using the following tools: AMSTAR (systematic reviews), Jadad (RCTs), and MINORS (non-RCTs)."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the quality of the included studies using appropriate tools.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "We developed a conclusion based on the highest quality studies."
- Reasoning: The authors used the quality of the studies to inform their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data, we could not conduct a meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors did not combine the findings of the studies due to heterogeneity.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Ideal timing of orchiopexy: a systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract The ideal management of cryptorchidism is a highly debated topic within the field of pediatric surgery. The optimal timing of orchiopexy is particularly unclear, as existing literature reports mixed recommendations. The aim of this study was to determine, based on a systematic review, the most favorable age at which orchiopexy should be performed. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library to find relevant articles. Two researchers quality assessed each study using the following tools: AMSTAR (systematic reviews), Jadad (RCTs), and MINORS (non-RCTs). We developed a conclusion based on the highest quality studies. We found one relevant systematic review, one RCT, and 30 non-RCTs. Fertility potential was greatest when orchiopexy was performed before 1 year of age. Additionally, orchiopexy before 10–11 years may protect against the increased risk of testicular cancer associated with cryptorchidism. Orchiopexy should not be performed before 6 months of age, as testes may descend spontaneously during the first few months of life. The highest quality evidence recommends orchiopexy between 6 and 12 months of age. Surgery during this timeframe may optimize fertility potential and protect against testicular malignancy in children with cryptorchidism."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The ideal management of cryptorchidism is a highly debated topic within the field of pediatric surgery. The optimal timing of orchiopexy is particularly unclear, as existing literature reports mixed recommendations."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to determine, based on a systematic review, the most favorable age at which orchiopexy should be performed."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the research question.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "We included all studies that examined the effect of age at orchiopexy on fertility or malignancy, even if these outcomes were not the primary focus."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 onwards), Embase (1980 onwards), and CINAHL (1982 onwards) to find relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We used the following search terms: ‘‘Cryptorchidism’’ AND ‘‘Orchiopexy’’ AND ‘‘timing’’ OR ‘‘age’’. We included only English publications and studies pertaining to humans and males. We also excluded any editorials and case reviews."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the search strategy used for the databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "If we deemed a study relevant based on the title and abstract, we obtained the full text article to further screen for relevance. Two researchers independently performed each level of screening, comparing the selected studies to reach a consensus. If a consensus could not be reached, they consulted a third researcher."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "One researcher extracted data from each of the included studies, and a second researcher checked the data for accuracy and completeness."
- Reasoning: The authors described the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Two researchers quality assessed each study using the following tools: AMSTAR (systematic reviews), Jadad (RCTs), and MINORS (non-RCTs)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not state the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data, we could not conduct a meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors did not combine the results of the studies due to heterogeneity.
- Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Our initial search yielded 198 studies. After screening, we quality assessed the 32 remaining studies that met our criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the number of studies screened and included in the review, but did not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "We found one relevant systematic review, one RCT, and 30 non-RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "We found one relevant systematic review, one RCT, and 30 non-RCTs. Fertility potential was greatest when orchiopexy was performed before 1 year of age. Additionally, orchiopexy before 10–11 years may protect against the increased risk of testicular cancer associated with cryptorchidism."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a summary of the results of the individual studies, but did not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data, we could not conduct a meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors did not conduct a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of the data.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not conduct any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In this review, we found that orchiopexy between 6 and 12 months of age may optimize fertility potential and help protect against the increased risk of testicular cancer associated with cryptorchidism."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and their relevance.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our results should be interpreted with caution due to limitations of our study. The most direct measurement of male fertility is paternity rate and time until conception of a live born child; however, due to the difficulty in conducting long-term paternity studies, most research has measured fertility using testicular growth/size, testicular histology at orchiopexy, and semen analysis in adulthood."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of their study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In this review, we found that orchiopexy between 6 and 12 months of age may optimize fertility potential and help protect against the increased risk of testicular cancer associated with cryptorchidism. Surgery should not be performed before 6 months, as the testis may descend spontaneously during that time."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

76. Chan 2014 (J Pediatr Surg): Minimally invasive versus open repair of Bochdalek hernia: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

23 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Our objective was to compare the outcomes of these procedures in a systematic review and meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors stated their objective but did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "We sought all publications describing both techniques through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL."
Reasoning: The authors mentioned the databases used for the literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis are detailed in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors provided a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "Two researchers independently assessed each study for methodological quality using MINORS."
Reasoning: The authors used the MINORS tool to assess the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "Our results should be interpreted with caution owing to the nature of the included studies."
Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "We conducted our meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.2."
Reasoning: The authors used a recognized tool for conducting their meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: "To address the risk of publication bias, we created a funnel plot for the recurrence outcome."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot.
Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Minimally invasive versus open repair of Bochdalek hernia: a meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: The abstract section.
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Surgery for CDH repair can be performed by the traditional open approach (either laparotomy or thoracotomy), or by minimally invasive surgery (MIS), which has become increasingly popular since the late 1990s [3]."
Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "Thus, our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature comparing surgical repair techniques for CDH."
Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "We excluded any studies that did not pertain to humans and children. We also excluded editorials, case reviews, and any studies that did not compare outcomes of MIS with open surgery for Bochdalek-type hernias."
Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "To identify all studies comparing MIS with open surgery for CDH repair, we conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE (1966 onwards), Embase (1980 onwards), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)."
Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "We used the keywords “diaphragmatic hernia”, “thoracoscopy”, “laparoscopy”, “minimally invasive surgery”, and “open”."
Reasoning: The authors presented the search strategy used for the databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Our initial search of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL yielded 160 studies (Fig. 1). After applying our exclusion criteria, 9 studies remained. We identified one additional relevant study through hand-searching, thus we included 10 studies in total [8–17]."
Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Our primary outcome of interest was hernia recurrence after surgery. Secondary outcomes included operative time, total length of stay (LOS), postoperative ventilator time and postoperative mortality."
Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "Two researchers independently assessed each study for methodological quality using MINORS."
Reasoning: The authors described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "We used weighted mean differences to analyze continuous data and odds ratios to analyze categorical variables."
Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "For each outcome, we first assessed the heterogeneity of the studies (Chi 2 test and I 2 statistic). When heterogeneity was low to moderate (Q test p N 0.10, I 2 b 50%), we used a fixed-effects model. When heterogeneity was moderate to high (Q test p b 0.10, I 2 N 50%), we used a random-effects model [7]."
Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: "To address the risk of publication bias, we created a funnel plot for the recurrence outcome."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: "When we conducted a subgroup analysis to examine recurrences within different types of repair (primary and patch repair), we found that the recurrence rate was higher after MIS with patch repair only; for primary repair there was no difference between MIS and open surgery."
Reasoning: The authors described the methods of additional analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "Our initial search of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL yielded 160 studies (Fig. 1). After applying our exclusion criteria, 9 studies remained. We identified one additional relevant study through hand-searching, thus we included 10 studies in total [8–17]."
Reasoning: The authors provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis are detailed in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: "Two researchers independently assessed each study for methodological quality using MINORS."
Reasoning: The authors presented data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: The results section.
Reasoning: The authors presented the results of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: The results section.
Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: "To address the risk of publication bias, we created a funnel plot for the recurrence outcome."
Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: "When we conducted a subgroup analysis to examine recurrences within different types of repair (primary and patch repair), we found that the recurrence rate was higher after MIS with patch repair only; for primary repair there was no difference between MIS and open surgery."
Reasoning: The authors presented the results of additional analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: The discussion section.
Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "Our results should be interpreted with caution owing to the nature of the included studies."
Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Our results indicate that recurrence of Bochdalek hernia is higher following MIS than open surgery when patch repair is performed."
Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

77. Chang 2015: Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1


LLM response

30 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement to report our findings."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using the PRISMA statement, but do not mention a specific protocol or a priori design.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors (Hsu and Chang) of the current study independently searched and reviewed the articles. When discrepancies occurred over the results, discussions with a third author (Yang) were made to reach a consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent study selection and data extraction with a consensus procedure for disagreements.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched PubMed ® for comparative studies (from January 1990 to 2014 September) that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic versus open pyeloplasty."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, but do not mention searching in at least two databases or using supplementary strategies.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Figure 1 shows the flowchart of selecting trials."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flowchart of study selection, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The demographic data of the patients in the 10 included trials are shown in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Two authors of this paper, Hsu and Chang, evaluated the quality of the study."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the included studies, but do not provide details on the methods used.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss the scientific quality of the included studies in relation to their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "All analyses were performed using Review Manager® statistical software (Version 5.3, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, England)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe using appropriate statistical software to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The authors describe assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Acknowledgments The study is partly funded by Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation. TCRD-TPE-103-RT-7."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge a source of funding, indicating a potential conflict of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic‑assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta‑analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Objective This manuscript is mainly to systemically review the published reports that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted (RP) versus open pyeloplasty (OP) in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO)."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Open dismembered pyeloplasty remained the best standard treating children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) despite the introduction of minimal invasive therapy."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "However, its benefits over laparoscopic and open approach were not clearly shown in children. Cundy et al. [22] did a meta-analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic with open pyeloplasty and concluded that RP is comparable to OP in success rate and complication with borderline significantly less estimated blood loss."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "The following criteria were used to filter studies for our analysis: randomized controlled trials or comparative studies that compared children who received either robotic or open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with data on perioperative parameters, complication rate, and success rate."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched PubMed ® for comparative studies (from January 1990 to 2014 September) that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic versus open pyeloplasty."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We used the following keywords: robotic, pyeloplasty, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, children, and pediatric."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used for the database.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two authors (Hsu and Chang) of the current study independently searched and reviewed the articles. When discrepancies occurred over the results, discussions with a third author (Yang) were made to reach a consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two authors of this paper, Hsu and Chang, evaluated the quality of the study."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "We extracted the following information from each study: study population characteristics, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, operation method, surgical approach, days of hospital stay, complication rate, follow-up period, and assessment of success rate."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "We analyzed the dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) as the summary statistic."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "All analyses were performed using Review Manager® statistical software (Version 5.3, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, England). The meta-analysis was performed using the fixed effect method when there was no statistically significant heterogeneity."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The authors specify an assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Figure 1 shows the flowchart of selecting trials. Initial research yielded 104 abstracts, and a total of 102 abstracts were included for evaluation after duplicates were removed."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flow diagram and give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The demographic data of the patients in the 10 included trials are shown in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide the citations.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Fig. 2 Forest plot of comparison: robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty. Outcome: (A) age, (B) operative time, (C) hospital stay, (D) costs"
- Reasoning: The authors present simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals with a forest plot.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Pooled analysis revealed a significant heterogeneity (p = 0.001), and patients underwent RP were borderline significantly older than OP (WMD = 3.58 years, 95 CI −0.29 to 7.46, p = 0.07) due to a paucity of studies that reported mean age with a standard deviation (Fig. 2a)."
- Reasoning: The authors present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The authors present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The current meta-analysis fails to validate robotic pyeloplasty as a standard of care in managing pediatric UPJO in the current status."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "There were several limitations to this study. First, the included studies were all retrospective in origin with lack of prospective data."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "We urge the pediatric laparoendoscopists and manufacturer to improve the surgical efficacy and safety of pediatric robotic-assisted pyeloplasty."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Acknowledgments The study is partly funded by Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation. TCRD-TPE-103-RT-7."
- Reasoning: The authors describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

78. Chen 2013: Transanal endorectal pull-through versus transabdominal approach for Hirschsprung’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

24 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of TERPT and TAB."
- Reasoning: The authors stated that they performed a comprehensive meta-analysis, but they did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that three reviewers independently appraised each study and extracted data.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: “Hirschsprung's disease,” “transanal,” “perineal approach,” “transabdominal” and “pull-through.” The reference lists of the full articles were also manually searched to identify additional eligible studies."
- Reasoning: The authors described a comprehensive search strategy using multiple databases and manual search of reference lists.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Our study included 792 patients; 444 underwent TERPT and 348 underwent TAB (including 215 Soave from eight studies, 94 Duhamel from five studies, 24 Swenson from two studies and 15 Rehbein procedures from one study)."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies, such as the number of patients and the types of procedures performed.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Transanal endorectal pull-through versus transabdominal approach for Hirschsprung's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Aim: Transanal endorectal pull-through (TERPT) has become popular for single-stage treatment of Hirschsprung's disease. The benefits of TERPT over the conventional transabdominal approach (TAB) are still unclear. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of TERPT and TAB. Methods: Original articles published from 1998 to 2012 were searched from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational clinical studies (OCS) comparing TERPT and TAB were included. Outcomes evaluated included operative time, hospital stay and incidence of postoperative incontinence/soiling, constipation and enterocolitis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables; pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables. Results: Of 93 studies, 1 RCT and 11 OCS were included, comprising 444 cases of TERPT and 348 cases of TAB (215 Soave, 94 Duhamel, 24 Swenson, 15 Rehbein procedures). TERPT had shorter operative time (MD = −57.85 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −83.11 to − 32.60; P b 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD = −7.06 days; 95% CI, −10.95 to −3.16; P = 0.0004). TERPT had less postoperative incontinence/ soiling (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.37–0.90; P = 0.01) and constipation (OR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.30–0.81; P = 0.005). There was no difference in incidence of postoperative enterocolitis. Conclusion: TERPT is superior to TAB in operative time, hospital stay, postoperative incontinence and constipation. However, more randomized controlled trials are necessary to verify the benefit of TERPT for Hirschsprung's disease."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Since the first description of aganglionosis in the myenteric plexus of the distal colon in congenital megacolon by Dalla Valle et al., a variety of surgical procedures have been described in an attempt to restore normal bowel function in Hirschsprung's disease (HD) [1–6]. For many years, surgical treatment of HD involved staged procedures; an initial diverting enterostomy was followed by definitive transabdominal pull-through surgery with subsequent closure of the colostomy. These multi-stage surgeries have gradually been replaced by the primary pull-through surgery in many centers [7]."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about the surgical treatment of Hirschsprung's disease.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "To compare the clinical outcomes of TERPT and TAB, we performed a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis from indexed published literature."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, although they did not explicitly mention the PICOS components.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All studies comparing the functional outcome of TERPT with TAB were considered to meet the inclusion criteria and full articles were retrieved. Because of the paucity of available randomized control trials (RCT) addressing the study question, observational clinical studies (OCS) were also included."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: “Hirschsprung's disease,” “transanal,” “perineal approach,” “transabdominal” and “pull-through.” The reference lists of the full articles were also manually searched to identify additional eligible studies."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: “Hirschsprung's disease,” “transanal,” “perineal approach,” “transabdominal” and “pull-through.”"
- Reasoning: The authors presented the search strategy for multiple databases, but did not provide enough detail for it to be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "After identifying relevant titles and abstracts, the studies were assessed for eligibility for inclusion in our meta-analysis. All studies comparing the functional outcome of TERPT with TAB were considered to meet the inclusion criteria and full articles were retrieved."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following data were evaluated: patient's age at operation, length of aganglionic segment, operative time, length of hospital stay, duration of follow-up and the incidence of postoperative incontinence, constipation and enterocolitis."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables; pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Of 93 studies, 1 RCT and 11 OCS were included, comprising 444 cases of TERPT and 348 cases of TAB (215 Soave, 94 Duhamel, 24 Swenson, 15 Rehbein procedures)."
- Reasoning: The authors gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Our study included 792 patients; 444 underwent TERPT and 348 underwent TAB (including 215 Soave from eight studies, 94 Duhamel from five studies, 24 Swenson from two studies and 15 Rehbein procedures from one study)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented characteristics for each study, but did not provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Of 93 studies, 1 RCT and 11 OCS were included, comprising 444 cases of TERPT and 348 cases of TAB (215 Soave, 94 Duhamel, 24 Swenson, 15 Rehbein procedures). TERPT had shorter operative time (MD = −57.85 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −83.11 to − 32.60; P b 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD = −7.06 days; 95% CI, −10.95 to −3.16; P = 0.0004). TERPT had less postoperative incontinence/ soiling (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.37–0.90; P = 0.01) and constipation (OR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.30–0.81; P = 0.005). There was no difference in incidence of postoperative enterocolitis."
- Reasoning: The authors presented simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, but did not provide a forest plot.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "TERPT had shorter operative time (MD = −57.85 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −83.11 to − 32.60; P b 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD = −7.06 days; 95% CI, −10.95 to −3.16; P = 0.0004). TERPT had less postoperative incontinence/ soiling (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.37–0.90; P = 0.01) and constipation (OR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.30–0.81; P = 0.005). There was no difference in incidence of postoperative enterocolitis."
- Reasoning: The authors presented results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our meta-analysis suggests that the TERPT is superior to the conventional TAB pull-through for Hirschsprung's disease."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our results appear to favor TERPT for most postoperative outcomes. However, this result must be interpreted cautiously due to the limitations of this study. The lack of randomized trials is a key problem."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, compared to TAB, TERPT is associated with shorter operative time, hospital stay and lesser postoperative incontinence and constipation. However, the lack of large prospective studies of robust design cannot be trivialized. More randomized controlled trials are necessary to verify the benefit of TERPT for Hirschsprung's disease. Longer follow-up is also needed to determine bowel function and quality of life in patients who undergo TERPT."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

79. Corbett 2015: Outcomes of endopyelotomy for pelviureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.2%)

2 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The study aimed to systematically analyse published literature to give an overall success rate for endopyelotomy in children."
- Reasoning: The authors state their research question and aim, but there is no explicit mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The inclusion of publications was decided by both the study authors and data were extracted independently by both study authors."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that both of them were involved in the study selection and data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key search terms."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the databases used and the key terms for the search, but they do not mention any supplementary strategies.
- Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "One hundred and fourteen studies were assessed, 15 were included in the final review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies assessed and included, but they do not provide a list of these studies or the excluded ones.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Fifteen studies published between 1987 and 2012 are included in the review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number and the publication years of the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "The median success rate was 71% (range 46e100) in the primary group and 75% (range 25e100) in the secondary group."
- Reasoning: The authors mention how they combined the findings of the studies, but they do not discuss any assessment of homogeneity or the appropriateness of combining the studies.
- Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest: None. Funding: None."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there is no conflict of interest or funding source.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Outcomes of endopyelotomy for pelviureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: A systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Summary: Introduction" [...] "Study design" [...] "Objective" [...] "Results" [...] "Discussion" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, results, and discussion.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Dismembered pyeloplasty is the gold standard treatment for pelviureteric obstruction (PUJO) although endourological techniques are also employed. Outcomes and success rates for paediatric endopyelotomy are variably reported."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The study aimed to systematically analyse published literature to give an overall success rate for endopyelotomy in children."
- Reasoning: The authors state the objective of the review, but they do not explicitly mention the PICOS components.
- Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Literature reviews, individual case reports, exclusively adult studies (age >20 years), and small case series of fewer than three paediatric patients were excluded."
- Reasoning: The authors specify some of the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key search terms."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the databases used for the search, but they do not provide the dates of coverage or the date of the last search.
- Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key search terms."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the databases and key search terms used, but they do not provide a full electronic search strategy.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All retrieved studies were evaluated by reading the abstracts, and full papers were retrieved for articles that could not be rejected based on abstract alone."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The inclusion of publications was decided by both the study authors and data were extracted independently by both study authors."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not list or define the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The median success rate was 71% (range 46e100) in the primary group and 75% (range 25e100) in the secondary group."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measure used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial search retrieved 242 titles. Once duplicate records had been excluded (n Z 128), 114 titles were assessed for eligibility."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened and assessed for eligibility, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Fifteen studies published between 1987 and 2012 are included in the review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number and the publication years of the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics or citations for these studies.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The median success rate was 71% (range 46e100) in the primary group and 75% (range 25e100) in the secondary group."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each group, but they do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals for individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The study found success rates of 71% for primary endopyelotomy and 75% for secondary procedures, neither of which compare favourably with established outcome data for open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Finally, the limitations of this review must be born in mind. The review includes reports that cover a wide time period during which both diagnostic modalities and operative techniques have evolved."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Crossing vessels are a significant concern in children with primary PUJO and should be excluded before considering endopyelotomy. Furthermore, due consideration must be given to the greater costs and complication rates associated with the procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss the implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Funding: None."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there was no funding for the review.
- Response: [Yes]

80. Cullis 2016: Is Screening of Intestinal Foregut Anatomy in Heterotaxy Patients Really Necessary?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 1 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.2%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "In light of uncertainty and controversy, we undertook a systematic review of the available literature to determine (1) whether screening of IRA is obligatory in ‘‘asymptomatic’’ patients with heterotaxy and (2) whether detection of a rotational anomaly war-rant(s) surgical correction in such a fragile patient cohort."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two reviewers (P.S.C., S.S.) performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment processes independently and all data was recorded in tabular form electronically. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with the third reviewer/senior corresponding author who conceived the study (P.D.L.)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent study selection and data extraction by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic search of the English language literature was conducted using a keyword algorithm (Supplemental Figure 1, http:// links.lww.com/SLA/A928). The search was conducted using the indexed databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Databases, from inception to January 11, 2015 (the search was again updated on June 18, 2015). Additional articles were identified through the reference listings of those articles yielded through the initial electronic database search."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy using multiple databases, keywords, and reference lists.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Conference proceedings and unpublished data were screened additionally."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Nineteen studies were included for systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 2 summarizes the main characteristics of the 19 included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Quality of manuscripts was evaluated by using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the use of a quality assessment tool (MINORS) to evaluate the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "As all studies identified were retrospective analyses, the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was employed to assess methodological quality."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they considered the quality of the studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "All studies were retrospective case series (meta-analysis was therefore not formally undertaken other than cumulative totals and percentages of data included)."
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, but they did combine the findings of the studies in a descriptive manner.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "No funding was sought or received for this work."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose that they did not receive any funding for the review, which could be a potential source of conflict of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Is Screening of Intestinal Foregut Anatomy in Heterotaxy Patients Really Necessary? A Systematic Review in Search of the Evidence"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The abstract is not included in the provided text.
- Response: [NA]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Heterotaxy is an abnormal arrangement of thoraco-abdominal viscera across a left-to-right axis. Intestinal rotational anomalies are frequent among patients with heterotaxy, but debate exists as to whether they are benign in nature, requiring careful observation alone, or if surgical correction is warranted to prevent obstruction or midgut volvulus."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review based on the existing debate in the literature.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In light of uncertainty and controversy, we undertook a systematic review of the available literature to determine (1) whether screening of IRA is obligatory in ‘‘asymptomatic’’ patients with heterotaxy and (2) whether detection of a rotational anomaly war-rant(s) surgical correction in such a fragile patient cohort."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the objectives of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: "The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A local review protocol was established."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a review protocol but do not provide information on where it can be accessed or any registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria were then applied to remaining studies (Table 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic search of the English language literature was conducted using a keyword algorithm (Supplemental Figure 1, http:// links.lww.com/SLA/A928). The search was conducted using the indexed databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Databases, from inception to January 11, 2015 (the search was again updated on June 18, 2015). Additional articles were identified through the reference listings of those articles yielded through the initial electronic database search."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search, including databases and reference lists, and provide the dates of the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A systematic search of the English language literature was conducted using a keyword algorithm (Supplemental Figure 1, http:// links.lww.com/SLA/A928)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a keyword algorithm but do not provide the full search strategy for any database.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two reviewers (P.S.C., S.S.) performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment processes independently and all data was recorded in tabular form electronically. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with the third reviewer/senior corresponding author who conceived the study (P.D.L.)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two reviewers (P.S.C., S.S.) performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment processes independently and all data was recorded in tabular form electronically. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with the third reviewer/senior corresponding author who conceived the study (P.D.L.)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome evaluated was mortality associated with conservative or surgical management of IRA. Secondary outcomes included development of malrotation with obstruction or midgut volvulus, that is, symptomatic IRA and complications thereof with surgical intervention."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the primary and secondary outcomes for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Quality of manuscripts was evaluated by using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the use of the MINORS criteria to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "All studies were retrospective case series (meta-analysis was therefore not formally undertaken other than cumulative totals and percentages of data included)."
- Reasoning: The authors state that they used cumulative totals and percentages as summary measures.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "All studies were retrospective case series (meta-analysis was therefore not formally undertaken other than cumulative totals and percentages of data included)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe how they handled and combined the data from the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Six hundred seventy-three citations were retrieved through the full literature search, of which there were 226 duplicates. Nineteen studies were included for systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 2 summarizes the main characteristics of the 19 included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Quality of manuscripts was evaluated by using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the risk of bias within studies using the MINORS criteria, but they do not present the data on risk of bias for each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "These 9 studies included a cumulative total of 414 patients managed expectantly, that is, ‘‘asymptomatic patients’’ in whom no IRA screening was undertaken (group A), 191 cases in whom screening was performed routinely (group B), and 92 patients who were considered ‘‘symptomatic’’ of potential rotational anomalies and therefore underwent imaging or laparotomy (group C)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each group of patients in the included studies, but they do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This systematic review shows that ‘‘asymptomatic patients’’ with heterotaxy are at a low risk of developing IRA-related complications. Of 414 patients managed expectantly, only a single patient (0.24%) developed symptoms directly attributable to IRA during the total follow-up period."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their relevance.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "We fully acknowledge that there are some limitations with the present study. Follow-up reporting data in studies we analyzed was sometimes poor. This may influence long-term outcome(s) of both a ‘‘watchful waiting’’ policy and operative intervention. Adequate reporting in studies was thus by no means always satisfactory."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review, including issues with follow-up reporting data and the quality of reporting in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Given the fragility of this patient cohort—with cardiac comorbidity(s)—many can therefore avoid an unnecessary Ladd’s operation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss their implications.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "No funding was sought or received for this work."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose that they did not receive any funding for the review.
- Response: [Yes]

81. Cundy 2014 (BJU Int): Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42013003969) and analysis was performed in accordance with recommendations outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement [5]."
Reasoning: The authors mention that the study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database, indicating an 'a priori' design.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts, and assessed eligible articles against inclusion criteria (T.P.C., A.H.H.). There was 90% agreement on identification of articles and discrepancies were resolved by consensus, or arbitrated by a third author (E.K.M.)."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two authors independently conducted the literature search and data extraction, and any disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third author.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Ovid Medline and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): (‘Surgery, Computer-Assisted’ OR ‘robotics’ OR ‘da Vinci’ OR ‘telerobotic’ OR ‘telesurgery’ OR ‘robotic surgery’) AND (‘Pediatrics’ OR ‘Infant’ OR ‘Child’ OR ‘Adolescent’) AND (‘Kidney’ OR ‘Pelvi-ureteric Junction Obstruction’ OR ‘Pyeloplasty’). The search was conducted up to December 2013. The primary search was supplemented with searches of: i) PubMed related articles feature, ii) clinicaltrials.gov registry using the keyword ‘pyeloplasty’, and iii) abstracts of the International Pediatric Endosurgery Group Annual Congresses (2002–2013), the AUA Annual Meetings (2006–2013), Section of Urology Program of the American Association of Pediatrics National Conference (2007–2012), and World Congress of Endourology (2008–2013)."
Reasoning: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases and supplementary strategies.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No specific quotes related to this criterion.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No specific quotes related to this criterion.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "In all, 12 observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 384 RAP, 131 LP, and 164 OP procedures. No randomised controlled trials were identified."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a detailed or aggregated form.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "The methodological quality of studies was appraised using a star-based modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) that considers patient selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome assessment (maximum 3, 10, and 2 stars respectively; total out of 15) [6]."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "The median (range) mNOS score was 9 (4–14) (Table 4)."
Reasoning: The authors mention the quality scores of the included studies, but do not explicitly state how these scores were used in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager ® Version 5.1.7 for Windows (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) and STATA v.11 statistical analysis software (StataCorp LP, TX, USA). A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses."
Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the likelihood of publication bias using funnel plots and statistical tests.
Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No specific quotes related to this criterion.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any conflicts of interest for the systematic review or the included studies.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, and systematic review registration number.
Reasoning: The abstract includes all the necessary components of a structured summary.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Pyeloplasty is the most prevalently reported and highest volume application of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery in children [1]. There is now an abundance of case reports and case series that clearly show the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) in paediatric populations [1]."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The aim of the present study was therefore to undertake a meta-analysis of RAP vs LP and OP in children."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, referencing participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: "The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42013003969) and analysis was performed in accordance with recommendations outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement [5]."
Reasoning: The authors mention that the review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database and provide the registration number.
Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "All included studies satisfied the following criteria: i) comparing RAP vs LP and/or OP; ii) involving paediatric patients with mean study group ages of <18 years; iii) reporting five or more patients in each study group; iv) involving singular pathologies or procedures; and v) investigating objective clinical outcome measures or cost. No language restrictions were imposed. In the event of duplication of data, more recent studies or those with larger sample sizes were preferentially considered."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Ovid Medline and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): (‘Surgery, Computer-Assisted’ OR ‘robotics’ OR ‘da Vinci’ OR ‘telerobotic’ OR ‘telesurgery’ OR ‘robotic surgery’) AND (‘Pediatrics’ OR ‘Infant’ OR ‘Child’ OR ‘Adolescent’) AND (‘Kidney’ OR ‘Pelvi-ureteric Junction Obstruction’ OR ‘Pyeloplasty’). The search was conducted up to December 2013. The primary search was supplemented with searches of: i) PubMed related articles feature, ii) clinicaltrials.gov registry using the keyword ‘pyeloplasty’, and iii) abstracts of the International Pediatric Endosurgery Group Annual Congresses (2002–2013), the AUA Annual Meetings (2006–2013), Section of Urology Program of the American Association of Pediatrics National Conference (2007–2012), and World Congress of Endourology (2008–2013)."
Reasoning: The authors describe all the information sources used in the search and the date the search was last conducted.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Ovid Medline and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): (‘Surgery, Computer-Assisted’ OR ‘robotics’ OR ‘da Vinci’ OR ‘telerobotic’ OR ‘telesurgery’ OR ‘robotic surgery’) AND (‘Pediatrics’ OR ‘Infant’ OR ‘Child’ OR ‘Adolescent’) AND (‘Kidney’ OR ‘Pelvi-ureteric Junction Obstruction’ OR ‘Pyeloplasty’). The search was conducted up to December 2013."
Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts, and assessed eligible articles against inclusion criteria (T.P.C., A.H.H.). There was 90% agreement on identification of articles and discrepancies were resolved by consensus, or arbitrated by a third author (E.K.M.)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts, and assessed eligible articles against inclusion criteria (T.P.C., A.H.H.). There was 90% agreement on identification of articles and discrepancies were resolved by consensus, or arbitrated by a third author (E.K.M.)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Primary outcomes of interest were operative success, requirement for re-operation, conversion rates, postoperative complications, and urinary leakage complication rates. Secondary outcome measures were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), operating time (OT), analgesia requirement, and cost."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "The methodological quality of studies was appraised using a star-based modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) that considers patient selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome assessment (maximum 3, 10, and 2 stars respectively; total out of 15) [6]."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated as the summary statistic for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) calculated for continuous variables. Both ORs and WMDs are reported with 95% CIs."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager ® Version 5.1.7 for Windows (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) and STATA v.11 statistical analysis software (StataCorp LP, TX, USA). A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
Reasoning: The authors specify the assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No specific quotes related to this criterion.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "In all, 12 observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 384 RAP, 131 LP, and 164 OP procedures. No randomised controlled trials were identified."
Reasoning: The authors give the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "In all, 12 observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 384 RAP, 131 LP, and 164 OP procedures. No randomised controlled trials were identified."
Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics for each study, but do not provide the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: "The median (range) mNOS score was 9 (4–14) (Table 4)."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: The authors present simple summary data for each intervention group, effect estimates and confidence intervals, and forest plots for all outcomes considered.
Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Reasoning: The authors present the synthesis of results for each meta-analysis done.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No specific quotes related to this criterion.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "Meta-analysis of the current literature identifies no significant differences between RAP and LP or OP for the five primary outcome variables assessed. Significant differences in favour of RAP were found for secondary outcome variables of EBL (vs OP) and LOS (vs LP and OP). OT was found to be significantly longer for RAP vs OP. Limited evidence from observational studies indicates lower opiate analgesia requirement for RAP (vs LP and OP), higher total costs for RAP vs OP, and comparable costs for RAP vs LP."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "No randomised controlled trials were identified. Unfortunately, this is not unusual despite these trials being considered the ‘gold-standard’ method of comparative assessment [27]. A distinct absence of prospective studies was also identified. The reliance upon less robust retrospective data are inadequate and represents a major weakness in the current literature base for paediatric robot-assisted surgery [1]."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "There is a strong need for higher quality evidence in the form of prospective observational studies and clinical trials, as well as further cost-effectiveness analyses."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No specific quotes related to this criterion.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

82. Cundy 2014 (J Pediatr Surg): Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42013003971)."
- Reasoning: The authors registered their study protocol on a recognized database.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts and assessed articles against eligibility criteria (TPC, HJM)."
- Reasoning: The authors used a duplicate process for study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases" [...] "The primary search was supplemented with searches of 1) PubMed related articles feature, 2) clinicaltrials.gov registry using the keyword “fundoplication”, and 3) abstracts of the International Pediatric Endosurgery Group annual congress from 2002 to 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors searched two databases and used supplementary search strategies.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Six studies met inclusion criteria, involving 135 robot-assisted and 162 conventional laparoscopic fundoplication procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number of studies included but did not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All included studies satisfied the following criteria: 1) comparing robot-assisted (RF) versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (LF), 2) involving pediatric patients with mean or median study group ages b 18 years, 3) reporting ≥ 5 patients in each study group, and 4) investigating either objective clinical outcome measures or GERD symptoms via standardized questionnaires."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The methodological quality of studies was appraised using a star-based modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) that considers patient selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome assessment (maximum 3, 10, and 2 stars respectively; total/15)."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the quality of the included studies using a recognized tool.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The strength of this meta-analysis is therefore limited by inherent vulnerability of these study designs to multiple sources of bias and both known and unknown confounders."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager® Version 5.1.7 for Windows (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) and STATA v.11 statistical analysis software (StataCorp LP, TX, USA). A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses."
- Reasoning: The authors used appropriate statistical methods to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using recognized methods.
- Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, and systematic review registration number.
- Reasoning: The abstract includes all the necessary components.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The role of robotic surgery in this setting remains unclear, generating a growing sentiment of polarized opinion amongst the surgical community, which is without a well-defined evidence base. The aim of this study is to critically appraise the literature comparing robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic MIS for fundoplication in order to further elucidate the comparative safety and efficacy of these techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This study aims to elucidate the comparative safety and efficacy of RF versus LF by systematic review and meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: "The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42013003971)."
- Reasoning: The authors indicated that a review protocol exists and provided registration information.
- Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All included studies satisfied the following criteria: 1) comparing robot-assisted (RF) versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (LF), 2) involving pediatric patients with mean or median study group ages b 18 years, 3) reporting ≥ 5 patients in each study group, and 4) investigating either objective clinical outcome measures or GERD symptoms via standardized questionnaires."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases" [...] "The primary search was supplemented with searches of 1) PubMed related articles feature, 2) clinicaltrials.gov registry using the keyword “fundoplication”, and 3) abstracts of the International Pediatric Endosurgery Group annual congress from 2002 to 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors described all the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy (“Surgery, Computer-Assisted”[MeSH] OR “robotics“[MeSH] OR “da Vinci” OR “telerobotic” OR “telesurgery” OR “robotic surgery”) AND (“Pediatrics”[MeSH] OR “Infant”[MeSH] OR “Child”[MeSH] OR “Adolescent” [MeSH]) AND (“Fundoplication”[MeSH] OR “Gastroesophageal reflux”[MeSH]). The search period was defined as June 2001 to June 2013 inclusively."
- Reasoning: The authors presented a full electronic search strategy for two databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts and assessed articles against eligibility criteria (TPC, HJM). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and discussion with the senior author (AD)."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts and assessed articles against eligibility criteria (TPC, HJM). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and discussion with the senior author (AD)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from reports.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Primary outcome measures of interest were intra-operative conversions, intra-operative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative complications, operating time (OT), analgesia requirement and cost."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The methodological quality of studies was appraised using a star-based modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) that considers patient selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome assessment (maximum 3, 10, and 2 stars respectively; total/15)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated as the summary statistic for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) calculated for continuous variables. Both OR and WMD are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI)."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager® Version 5.1.7 for Windows (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) and STATA v.11 statistical analysis software (StataCorp LP, TX, USA). A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
- Reasoning: The authors specified an assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "In evaluating breakdown of operative times for defined procedural stages, Lehnert et al. found initial time from skin incision to start of hiatal region dissection to be significantly longer in the RF group (P = 0.002) [14]. Inversely, they also found that for the more technically difficult aspect of the procedure, hiatal dissection was significantly shorter in the RF group (P = 0.005) [14]."
- Reasoning: The authors described methods of additional analyses.
- Response: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Six studies met inclusion criteria, involving 135 robot-assisted and 162 conventional laparoscopic fundoplication procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors gave the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Six observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 297 children. No randomized controlled trials were identified."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics for each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The median mNOS score was 8 (range 5–14, Table 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Pooled analysis determined no statistically significant differences between RF and LF for conversions, OT, LOS, and post-operative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors presented simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Pooled analysis determined no statistically significant differences between RF and LF for conversions, OT, LOS, and post-operative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "In evaluating breakdown of operative times for defined procedural stages, Lehnert et al. found initial time from skin incision to start of hiatal region dissection to be significantly longer in the RF group (P = 0.002) [14]. Inversely, they also found that for the more technically difficult aspect of the procedure, hiatal dissection was significantly shorter in the RF group (P = 0.005) [14]."
- Reasoning: The authors gave the results of additional analyses.
- Response: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Meta-analysis of the current literature identifies comparable safety and short-term efficacy for robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication when compared to conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The majority of comparative effectiveness literature is comprised of small retrospective studies with historical controls. The strength of this meta-analysis is therefore limited by inherent vulnerability of these study designs to multiple sources of bias and both known and unknown confounders."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations at the study and outcome level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Higher quality and longer-follow up studies are now required to more definitively and comprehensively determine the role of robotic-assisted techniques in this setting. Equipoise in short-term clinical outcomes emphasizes the need for further cost-effectiveness analysis to also be undertaken."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

83. Cundy 2014 (Eur J Pediatr Surg): Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pediatric Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review of Feasibility and Current Status

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 NA 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.3%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42013003971)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that the study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts and assessed articles against eligibility criteria (TPC, HJM)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two authors independently conducted the literature search and data extraction.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy using multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "The primary search was supplemented with searches of 1) PubMed related articles feature, 2) clinicaltrials.gov registry using the keyword “fundoplication”, and 3) abstracts of the International Pediatric Endosurgery Group annual congress from 2002 to 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors mention searching clinical trial registries and conference abstracts, which are considered grey literature.
- Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Six studies met inclusion criteria, involving 135 robot-assisted and 162 conventional laparoscopic fundoplication procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All included studies satisfied the following criteria: 1) comparing robot-assisted (RF) versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (LF), 2) involving pediatric patients with mean or median study group ages b 18 years, 3) reporting ≥ 5 patients in each study group, and 4) investigating either objective clinical outcome measures or GERD symptoms via standardized questionnaires."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The methodological quality of studies was appraised using a star-based modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) that considers patient selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome assessment (maximum 3, 10, and 2 stars respectively; total/15)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The strength of this meta-analysis is therefore limited by inherent vulnerability of these study designs to multiple sources of bias and both known and unknown confounders."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager® Version 5.1.7 for Windows (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) and STATA v.11 statistical analysis software (StataCorp LP, TX, USA). A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the risk of publication bias using funnel plots and statistical tests.
- Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not include information on conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Background: Minimally invasive fundoplication may be performed using either a robot-assisted (RF) or conventional laparoscopic (LF) technique. Evidence comparing RF and LF in children remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate the comparative safety and efficacy of RF versus LF by systematic review and meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The role of robotic surgery in this setting remains unclear, generating a growing sentiment of polarized opinion amongst the surgical community, which is without a well-defined evidence base."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of the current state of knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study is to critically appraise the literature comparing robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic MIS for fundoplication in order to further elucidate the comparative safety and efficacy of these techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: "The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42013003971)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that the review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database.
- Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All included studies satisfied the following criteria: 1) comparing robot-assisted (RF) versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (LF), 2) involving pediatric patients with mean or median study group ages b 18 years, 3) reporting ≥ 5 patients in each study group, and 4) investigating either objective clinical outcome measures or GERD symptoms via standardized questionnaires."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy" [...] "The search period was defined as June 2001 to June 2013 inclusively."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the search period.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Systematic literature searches were undertaken of PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases using the following search strategy (“Surgery, Computer-Assisted”[MeSH] OR “robotics“[MeSH] OR “da Vinci” OR “telerobotic” OR “telesurgery” OR “robotic surgery”) AND (“Pediatrics”[MeSH] OR “Infant”[MeSH] OR “Child”[MeSH] OR “Adolescent” [MeSH]) AND (“Fundoplication”[MeSH] OR “Gastroesophageal reflux”[MeSH])."
- Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for the databases used.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts and assessed articles against eligibility criteria (TPC, HJM). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and discussion with the senior author (AD)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two authors independently undertook literature searches, screened abstracts and assessed articles against eligibility criteria (TPC, HJM). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus and discussion with the senior author (AD)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data collection process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Primary outcome measures of interest were intra-operative conversions, intra-operative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative complications, operating time (OT), analgesia requirement and cost."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The methodological quality of studies was appraised using a star-based modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) that considers patient selection, inter-group comparability, and outcome assessment (maximum 3, 10, and 2 stars respectively; total/15)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used to assess the risk of bias in the individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated as the summary statistic for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) calculated for continuous variables."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager® Version 5.1.7 for Windows (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) and STATA v.11 statistical analysis software (StataCorp LP, TX, USA). A weighted random-effects model was used for all analyses."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not include information on additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Six studies met inclusion criteria, involving 135 robot-assisted and 162 conventional laparoscopic fundoplication procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Six observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 297 children. No randomized controlled trials were identified."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The median mNOS score was 8 (range 5–14, Table 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Pooled analysis determined no statistically significant differences between RF and LF for conversions, OT, LOS, and post-operative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated as the summary statistic for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) calculated for continuous variables."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Risk of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots in addition to statistical estimation with both Begg and Mazumdar’s test and Egger’s test for small study effects."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not include information on additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Meta-analysis of the current literature identifies comparable safety and short-term efficacy for robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication when compared to conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The majority of comparative effectiveness literature is comprised of small retrospective studies with historical controls. The strength of this meta-analysis is therefore limited by inherent vulnerability of these study designs to multiple sources of bias and both known and unknown confounders."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Higher quality and longer-follow up studies are now required to more definitively and comprehensively determine the role of robotic-assisted techniques in this setting. Equipoise in short-term clinical outcomes emphasizes the need for further cost-effectiveness analysis to also be undertaken."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss the implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not include information on funding.
- Response: [No]

84. Ding 2013: Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

33 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.4%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Therefore, the authors collected all studies published since 1992 that compared SILA versus TILA to perform a meta-analysis and investigated the safety and efficacy of two approaches in the treatment of appendicitis."
- Reasoning: The authors state that they planned to perform a meta-analysis comparing SILA and TILA, but they do not mention a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Three researchers extracted data from each study by using a structured sheet and entered the data into a database."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that three researchers were involved in data extraction, but they do not specify if this was done independently or if there was a consensus process for disagreements.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The publications were identified by searching the major medical databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant papers published between January 1992 and July 2012."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their search strategy and the databases they used, but they do not mention any supplementary strategies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on their publication status.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "According to the search strategy and inclusion criteria, a total of 17 studies [5,15–30] that included 1809 appendicectomy cases (793 SILA and 1016 TILA) were considered suitable for meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included in their meta-analysis and provide references, but they do not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The characteristics of the 17 studies (1 randomized controlled trial [22] and 16 retrospective studies [5,15–21,23–30]) are shown in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "We used a star scoring system [12] based on criteria related to study design, comparability of patient groups, and outcome assessment to assess literature quality."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their method for assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Most of the studies included in our meta-analysis were retrospective studies, which could have led to some selection bias."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study, including the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Statistically, it was not possible to combine the analysis of mean and median, and only data in the form of means and standard deviation were included in the meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their method for combining the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "The funnel plot of standard of error by effect size for the measurements of wound infection, showed an equal distribution of studies around the middle line, indicating that publication bias was not evident."
- Reasoning: The authors assess the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "This study was supported by Science and Technology Fund of Guizhou Province. Grant Number: 黔科合J字 [2008]2181."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose the source of funding for their study, but they do not mention any conflicts of interest for the included studies.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Background: This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA) in the treatment of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: Studies published since 1992 that compared SILA versus TILA in laparoscopic appendicectomy were collected. Data on operative parameters, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications, and hospitalization costs for SILA and TILA were meta-analyzed using fixed-effect and random-effect models. Results: Seventeen studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 16 retrospective studies) that included 1809 patients were studied. Of these patients, 793 and 1016 had undergone SILA and TILA, respectively. There was significantly shorter length of hospital stay; however, there were evidently higher conversion rate, and perhaps higher surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs for SILA compared with TILA. Other outcome variables such as operative time, blood loss, time to first oral intake, postoperative pain and complications were not found to be statistically significant for either group. Conclusions: Compared with TILA, SILA has the advantage of shorter hospital stay, and it can achieve comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA. The drawback is that SILA is associated with higher conversion rate, and perhaps higher surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs. Whether it can achieve improvement in cosmesis remains to be confirmed."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is the novel member of the minimally invasive surgery [4], it's a new innovation allowing minimal invasive surgery to be performed through a single umbilical incision, and it can further reduce the trauma of surgical access [5]. SILS has made great strides forward in general surgery, urological and gynecological surgery in recent years [6–11], its treatment for appendicitis (i.e. single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, SILA) has been widely adopted. However, compared with conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA), it remains to be confirmed that which surgery has more advantages and should be recommended."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for their review in the context of the current state of knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Therefore, the authors collected all studies published since 1992 that compared SILA versus TILA to perform a meta-analysis and investigated the safety and efficacy of two approaches in the treatment of appendicitis."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the objectives of their review, including the participants (patients with appendicitis), interventions (SILA and TILA), comparisons (between SILA and TILA), and outcomes (safety and efficacy).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Inclusion criteria were: (1) clinical studies that compared single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis between 1992 and 2012; (2) patients with primary appendicitis; and (3) raw data included some of the following: operative parameters, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, postoperative pain and hospital charges. Exclusion criteria were: (1) no three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy as a control; (2) secondary appendicitis; (3) duplicate publication or the publication did not provide sufficient data."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in their review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The publications were identified by searching the major medical databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant papers published between January 1992 and July 2012."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases they used for their search and the time period covered.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search strategy was as follows: (single-port or single-incision or single-access or single-site or single or one) AND (laparoscopic or laparoscopy or minimal invasive surgery) AND (appendectomy or appendix)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide their search strategy, which could be repeated.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Three researchers extracted data from each study by using a structured sheet and entered the data into a database."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies, but they do not provide details about the screening and eligibility assessment.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Three researchers extracted data from each study by using a structured sheet and entered the data into a database."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their data extraction process, but they do not mention any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The extracted information comprised: author, year of publication, source journal, sample size, research design, clinical and pathological features of included patients, operative parameters, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, postoperative pain and hospital charges."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which they sought data.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "We used a star scoring system [12] based on criteria related to study design, comparability of patient groups, and outcome assessment to assess literature quality."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their method for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "In this meta-analysis, weighted mean differences (WMD) were used for the analysis of continuous variables, and odds ratios (OR) were used for dichotomous variables."
- Reasoning: The authors state the summary measures they used in their meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Random-effect models were used to identify heterogeneity between the studies [13]. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ2 test."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their methods for handling data and combining the results of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "The funnel plot of standard of error by effect size for the measurements of wound infection, showed an equal distribution of studies around the middle line, indicating that publication bias was not evident."
- Reasoning: The authors assess the risk of publication bias across the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "Seven outcomes were selected for sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis included the following: (1) 12 studies with intracorporeal appendectomy [5,15–18,20,21,25–28,30]; (2) 12 studies with quality score ≥ 6 [5,15–17,20–23,25,26,28,30]; (3) 10 studies with ≥ 30 cases per group [5,15,19,20,22,23,26,27,29,30]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their methods for additional analyses, including sensitivity analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "According to the search strategy and inclusion criteria, a total of 17 studies [5,15–30] that included 1809 appendicectomy cases (793 SILA and 1016 TILA) were considered suitable for meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The characteristics of the 17 studies (1 randomized controlled trial [22] and 16 retrospective studies [5,15–21,23–30]) are shown in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies and provide citations.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Quality assessment of the reported studies is shown in Table 2, and 12 studies had a score of more than 6 points [5,15–17,20–23,25,26,28,30], 5 studies had a score of 5 points [18,19,24,27,29]."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in operative time and blood loss between SILA and TILA."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each outcome, but they do not provide this information for each individual study or use a forest plot.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "In the pooled data, there were no significant differences in operative time between SILA and TILA (WMD: 0.91; 95% CI:−2.58 to 4.41; P = 0.61) (Fig. 2A)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "The funnel plot of standard of error by effect size for the measurements of wound infection, showed an equal distribution of studies around the middle line, indicating that publication bias was not evident."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "Seven outcomes were selected for sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis included the following: (1) 12 studies with intracorporeal appendectomy [5,15–18,20,21,25–28,30]; (2) 12 studies with quality score ≥ 6 [5,15–17,20–23,25,26,28,30]; (3) 10 studies with ≥ 30 cases per group [5,15,19,20,22,23,26,27,29,30]."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their additional analyses, including sensitivity analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, this study suggests that SILA is a safe technical alternative to TILA for patients with appendicitis. It involves significantly shorter hospital stay and possible improvement in cosmesis [22], and comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize their main findings and discuss their relevance.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "We have identified some limitations of this meta-analysis. Firstly, the differences in the age of included patients, pathological type of appendicitis and instruments of SILS may affect the comparability of the included studies. Secondly, different studies may have had different defining criteria for the outcomes we were interested in, which may not be reported in the study methodology."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Therefore, more well-designed, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials are expected to be published to allow for a more convincing evaluation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of their results and discuss the implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "This study was supported by Science and Technology Fund of Guizhou Province. Grant Number: 黔科合J字 [2008]2181."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose the source of funding for their review.
- Answer: [Yes]

85. Dingemann 2014: Thoracoscopic Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: What is the Evidence?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 1


LLM response

14 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to present a current analysis of the highest available evidence concerning pediatric VATS."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and aim of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Clinical studies published in the English literature were identified by a Medline literature search using PubMed (www. pubmed.com). The Web site was last accessed on January 2, 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the database used for the literature search but did not provide details about the search strategy.
- Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A total of 21 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria of our systematic review of which 3 were MA and 18 were RCS."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Levels of evidence were determined using the recent CEBM criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that they assessed the quality of the included studies using the CEBM criteria.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Except from one preliminary study and a most recently published pilot study, only RCS on pediatric VATS are available for five different types of procedures. Therefore, the best available evidence according to the CEBM criteria is Level 3."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest: None."
- Reasoning: The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Thoracoscopic Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: What is the Evidence?"
- Reasoning: The title indicates that this is a review of evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Introduction Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has gained enormous acceptance among pediatric surgeons. However, most studies on advantages of VATS do not reach a high level of evidence. According to a recent classification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), studies can be classified into Levels 1 to 5 in order of descending quality. We aimed to identify comparative studies investigating VATS versus open procedures in pediatric surgery and to classify publications according to the CEBM criteria."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has evolved quickly and it has gained widespread acceptance among pediatric surgeons during the last decade."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to present a current analysis of the highest available evidence concerning pediatric VATS."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the objective of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Clinical studies published in the English literature were identified by a Medline literature search using PubMed (www. pubmed.com). The Web site was last accessed on January 2, 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Clinical studies published in the English literature were identified by a Medline literature search using PubMed (www. pubmed.com). The Web site was last accessed on January 2, 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources and the date of the last search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present a full electronic search strategy.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the data collection process.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not state the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A total of 21 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria of our systematic review of which 3 were MA and 18 were RCS."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the number of studies included in the review, but did not provide the number of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, or reasons for exclusions.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present the characteristics for each study.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Except from one preliminary study and a most recently published pilot study, only RCS on pediatric VATS are available for five different types of procedures. Therefore, the best available evidence according to the CEBM criteria is Level 3."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and the strength of evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Larger randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the corresponding open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Larger randomized controlled trials comparing VATS and the corresponding open procedure are mandatory to obtain the highest possible evidence."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

86. Dingemann 2013: Systematic Review of Level 1 Evidence for Laparoscopic Pediatric Surgery: Do Our Procedures Comply with the Requirements of Evidence-Based Medicine?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to evaluate the availability of Level 1 studies comparing laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation in pediatric surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their research question and inclusion criteria.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the use of duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Clinical Level 1 studies (SR, MA, and RCT) published in the English literature were identified through a Medline literature search using PubMed."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the database used for the literature search, but did not provide details about the search strategy or additional sources.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A total of 20 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria for our SR, of which 9 were SRs or MAs and 11 RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not discuss the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest: None"
- Reasoning: The authors declared no conflict of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Systematic Review of Level 1 Evidence for Laparoscopic Pediatric Surgery: Do Our Procedures Comply with the Requirements of Evidence-Based Medicine?"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Introduction" [...] "Materials and Methods" [...] "Results" [...] "Conclusion" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Introduction: The use of laparoscopic techniques has evolved quickly and gained enormous acceptance in pediatric surgery in the last decade."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to evaluate the availability of Level 1 studies comparing laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation in pediatric surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated the research question and objectives.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Clinical Level 1 studies (SR, MA, and RCT) published in the English literature were identified through a Medline literature search using PubMed."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The Web site was last accessed on May 5, 2012."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the database used and the date of the last search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a full electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Abstracts were individually reviewed and only those of studies comparing the results and clinical outcome of laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation were chosen for further analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the data collection process.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A total of 20 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria for our SR, of which 9 were SRs or MAs and 11 RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the number of studies included in the review, but did not provide the number of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, reasons for exclusions, or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present characteristics for each study or provide citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Studies meeting the CEBM criteria for Level 1 are available for only seven laparoscopic pediatric surgical procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Effort has to be made to extend the existing Level 1 evidence to open questions concerning these seven procedures and to gain high level evidence for further laparoscopic procedures in pediatric surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and discussed implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

88. Elyas 2010: Is Staging Beneficial for Fowler-Stephens Orchiopexy? A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.2%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic review to determine whether single or 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy results in better testicular viability."
- Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria are established before the conduct of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Each author was allocated roughly 10 articles, and independently abstracted the data and assessed the quality of the reports."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that data extraction was done independently by each author.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched several electronic databases, including MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and ACP Journal Club®."
- Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and provided the names of these databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Reference lists of the selected articles were hand searched for relevant citations, as was potentially relevant gray literature, which consists of studies either not published or not indexed in major databases."
- Reasoning: The authors searched for grey literature and included it in their review.
- Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "A total of 1,807 potentially relevant articles were retrieved from the initial electronic database search and an additional 13 studies from the gray literature search."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of articles retrieved but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "No included study was a RCT, and only 4 of 61 articles mentioned how or if statistical analysis was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each author was allocated roughly 10 articles, and independently abstracted the data and assessed the quality of the reports."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "However, the level of evidence of the studies was low and a study of a more robust design such as a randomized control trial should be performed to evaluate and compare the efficacies of these therapies in the pediatric population."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analysis using weighted mean difference (random effects model) was conducted using R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien, Austria)."
- Reasoning: The authors used appropriate statistical methods to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "The funnel plot was roughly symmetrical, suggesting that publication bias was unlikely a significant factor."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot.
- Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Is Staging Beneficial for Fowler-Stephens Orchiopexy? A Systematic Review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not include an abstract.
- Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Fowler and Stephens showed that by dividing the spermatic vessels a high intra-abdominal testis could be placed in the scrotum. Testicular atrophy is a potential complication of this technique."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We evaluated whether single stage or 2-stage FSO results in greater testicular viability in children younger than 18 years with intra-abdominal testes."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies were considered relevant if they met the following inclusion criteria. Patients were younger than 18 years, had an intra-abdominal testis, had undergone single or 2-stage FSO (open or laparoscopic), and had data regarding testicular size and position available postoperatively."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched several electronic databases, including MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and ACP Journal Club®."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search strategy used in MEDLINE (Ovid interface) was Fowler Stephens.mp.; orchidopexy.mp.; orchiopexy.mp.; Laparoscopy [Abnormalities, Adverse Effects, Classification, Standards, Statistics and Numerical Data, Surgery, Methods, Trends, Utiliza- tion].; or/1-4.; Cryptorchi$.mp.; Undescended test$.mp.; Initial search n = 1807 Non-relevant abstracts and duplicates excluded n = 1660 Grey Literature, conference proceedings, reference lists n = 13 Hard copies of papers and/or abstracts obtained. n = 160 Non-English and non-relevant papers excluded. n = 61 Final exclusion for relevance n = 38 excluded Studies included in review n = 61 Citations underwent review n = 99 Figure 1. Flowchart of excluded and included articles STAGED FOWLER-STEPHENS ORCHIOPEXY 2013"
- Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for one database.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All of the identified abstracts were imported into an electronic database (RefWorks, Bethesda, Maryland) and underwent initial screening for relevance by 2 of us. Hard copies of potentially relevant records were obtained and a more focused screening excluded additional documents."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Each author was allocated roughly 10 articles, and independently abstracted the data and assessed the quality of the reports."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome was testicular viability, which was defined as adequate postoperative testicular size and position in the scrotum. Secondary outcomes were perioperative and postoperative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Each author was allocated roughly 10 articles, and independently abstracted the data and assessed the quality of the reports."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Meta-analysis using weighted mean difference (random effects model) was conducted using R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien, Austria)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis using weighted mean difference (random effects model) was conducted using R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien, Austria)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "The funnel plot was roughly symmetrical, suggesting that publication bias was unlikely a significant factor."
- Reasoning: The authors specify an assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A total of 1,807 potentially relevant articles were retrieved from the initial electronic database search and an additional 13 studies from the gray literature search. After a thorough assessment 99 articles underwent a full review for evaluation of quality and data abstraction by the entire team. Ultimately 61 articles were included in the review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Of the articles 9 (204 testes) included success rates of single stage FSO. The pooled estimate of success rate was 80% (95% CI 75 to 86) and the I2, a measurement of heterogeneity, was 11% (fig. 2). Among the 36 articles (751 testes) including success rates of 2-stage FSO the pooled estimate of success rate was 85% (95% CI 81 to 90) and the I2 was 43% (fig. 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study, but do not provide the citations.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Of the articles 9 (204 testes) included success rates of single stage FSO. The pooled estimate of success rate was 80% (95% CI 75 to 86) and the I2, a measurement of heterogeneity, was 11% (fig. 2). Among the 36 articles (751 testes) including success rates of 2-stage FSO the pooled estimate of success rate was 85% (95% CI 81 to 90) and the I2 was 43% (fig. 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study, and use forest plots.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "The pooled estimate of success rates was 80% for single stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy (95% CI 75 to 86) and 85% for 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy (95% CI 81 to 90)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "The funnel plot was roughly symmetrical, suggesting that publication bias was unlikely a significant factor."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Based on the results of this review, both approaches have a fairly high success rate, although 2-stage FSO appears to carry a higher rate of success over the single stage procedure, defined as postoperative viability of the testis (85% vs 80%, OR 2 in favor of 2-stage)."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The strength of this study was limited by several factors. This systematic review failed to identify any RCTs comparing success rates of single vs 2-stage FSO. The studies included consisted almost entirely of retrospective cohort or case series, with only 16 reports comparing single to 2-stage repair."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "However, the level of evidence of the studies was low and a study of a more robust design such as a randomized control trial should be performed to evaluate and compare the efficacies of these therapies in the pediatric population."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text provided does not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

89. Esposito 2014: Laparoscopic Versus Open Inguinal Hernia Repair in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this review is to analyze the current literature to determine the outcome of LH compared with OH."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the research question and inclusion criteria, but there is no mention of a protocol or ethics approval.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The authors independently assessed selected studies and tabulated data from each article with a predefined data extraction form."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that they independently assessed the studies, indicating a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline databases on all studies published during the last 20 years."
- Reasoning: The authors used multiple databases for their search and provided the years of coverage, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Conference abstracts were excluded because of the limited data presented in them."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the exclusion of conference abstracts, but there is no explicit statement about the inclusion or exclusion of grey literature.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "We recorded 171 studies, but 118 of these were excluded from our analysis using the following criteria" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number of studies included and excluded, but did not provide a list of these studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All studies showed a total population of 19,022 children and adolescents (age, 0–18 years) who underwent hernia repair by laparoscopic (LH) (11,591 cases, 60.9%) or open (OH) (7440 cases, 39.1%) techniques and reported operative time, postoperative recurrence and complications, conversion rate, rare hernias, and incidence of contralateral patency."
- Reasoning: The authors provided aggregated data on the participants, interventions, and outcomes of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included all available studies focused on LH and/or OH and with quantitative data on outcome parameters."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned eligibility criteria for the studies, but there is no explicit assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In conclusion, we think that there is no evidence in the literature about which technique (laparoscopy or inguinal approach) is preferable to repair an inguinal hernia."
- Reasoning: The authors formulated their conclusions based on the results of the included studies, but since the scientific quality of the studies was not assessed (A7), this question cannot be scored as "yes".
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "The chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the significance of differences between the two groups: LH and OH."
- Reasoning: The authors used statistical methods to combine the findings of the studies, indicating an appropriate method of data synthesis.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias in their review.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Disclosure Statement: No competing financial interests exist."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a disclosure statement, indicating that they acknowledged potential sources of conflict of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic Versus Open Inguinal Hernia Repair in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Aim: Inguinal hernia is one of the most common surgical conditions in infants and children. However, considerable debate exists regarding the role of laparoscopic hernia repair (herniorrhaphy) (LH) and its benefits over conventional open hernia repair (herniorrhaphy) (OH). The aim of this review is to analyze the current literature to determine the outcome of LH compared with OH."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, and results.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Inguinal hernia is one of the most common surgical conditions in infants and children. However, considerable debate exists regarding the role of laparoscopic hernia repair (herniorrhaphy) (LH) and its benefits over conventional open hernia repair (herniorrhaphy) (OH)."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of the existing debate over laparoscopic versus open hernia repair.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This review aims to evaluate the role of LH in children and to compare LH with OH in regard to operative time, postoperative complications, recurrence rate, discovering of rare hernias, and incidence of contralateral patency."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the research question, including the participants (children), interventions (LH and OH), comparisons (LH versus OH), and outcomes (operative time, complications, recurrence rate, rare hernias, contralateral patency).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included all available studies focused on LH and/or OH and with quantitative data on outcome parameters. The pediatric population was defined as younger than 18 years when the patient underwent LH or OH."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline databases on all studies published during the last 20 years."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search, but did not provide the date of the last search.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The following key words were used: ‘‘inguinal hernia,’’ ‘‘herniorrhaphy,’’ ‘‘hernia repair,’’ ‘‘children,’’ ‘‘laparoscopic versus open herniorrhaphy,’’ ‘‘laparoscopic versus open hernia repair,’’ ‘‘contralateral patency,’’ ‘‘complications,’’ and ‘‘re- currence.’’ Searches were also performed using the following as limits: clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, multicenter retrospective, prospective studies, and expert opinion."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the key words and limits used in their search strategy, but did not specify which database this strategy was used for.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "After relevant titles were identified, the abstracts of these studies were read to decide if the study was eligible. The full article was retrieved when the information in the title and/or abstract appeared to meet the objective of our review."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies, including screening and eligibility assessment.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The authors independently assessed selected studies and tabulated data from each article with a predefined data extraction form."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from the reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data regarding the following factors were considered: first author, publication date, study method, participant features, intervention characteristics, definition of complications, and outcome measures."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the significance of differences between the two groups: LH and OH."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in their review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "The chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the significance of differences between the two groups: LH and OH."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "We recorded 171 studies, but 118 of these were excluded from our analysis using the following criteria" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The authors provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "All studies showed a total population of 19,022 children and adolescents (age, 0–18 years) who underwent hernia repair by laparoscopic (LH) (11,591 cases, 60.9%) or open (OH) (7440 cases, 39.1%) techniques and reported operative time, postoperative recurrence and complications, conversion rate, rare hernias, and incidence of contralateral patency."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics of the included studies, but did not provide the citations for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The mean operative time for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia was 30.1 minutes via the open approach and 23.7 minutes via laparoscopy, with no significant difference between the two techniques (P = .33)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group, but did not provide a forest plot.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review, not a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not conduct any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, we think that there is no evidence in the literature about which technique (laparoscopy or inguinal approach) is preferable to repair an inguinal hernia."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings of their review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not discuss the limitations of their review.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, we think that there is no evidence in the literature about which technique (laparoscopy or inguinal approach) is preferable to repair an inguinal hernia."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and suggested the need for further research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Disclosure Statement: No competing financial interests exist."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a disclosure statement, but did not describe the sources of funding for the review.
- Answer: [No]

90. Feng 2016: Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes between laparoscopic splenectomy and the traditional open splenectomy in children."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and the method (systematic review and meta-analysis) they would use to answer it.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Included studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and a third reviewer was required for a final decision in the case of any discrepancies."
- Reasoning: The authors used two independent reviewers for study selection and data extraction, and a third reviewer for resolving discrepancies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Published records were searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 1993 to 2015."
- Reasoning: The authors searched three databases and specified the years of coverage.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Studies comparing LS and OS in children were included regardless of randomization or non-randomization."
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "10 studies with 922 participants (508 received LS and 414 OS) met our total inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number of included studies but did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Tables 1, 2 and 3 outlines the primary and secondary outcome results from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors provided tables summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention assessing the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "For continuous data, we presented mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous data, we calculated odds ratios (ORs)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods they used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Acknowledgments The manuscript had been proofread by Professor Xin-He Lai, Institute of Translational Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledged the contribution of a third party but did not explicitly state any conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Purpose We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes between laparoscopic splenectomy and the traditional open splenectomy in children."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Splenectomy is occasionally performed in children with various hematologic disorders such as sickle cell disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and so on [1]. Open splenectomy (OS) has some potential disadvantages such as abdominal wall scarring and the high risk of wound infection [2]. To avoid the potential disadvantages related to open surgery, surgeons are now drawing their attention to the laparoscopic techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors described the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes between laparoscopic splenectomy and the traditional open splenectomy in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Inclusion criteria: (1) clinical trials that compared laparoscopic versus open splenectomy between 1993 and 2015; (2) children under 18 years old who suffered from benign or malignant hematological diseases; exclusion criteria: (1) no open splenectomy as a control; (2) reports fewer than ten cases per group; and (3) studies did not provide available original data or duplicate publications."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Published records were searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 1993 to 2015."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources and the dates of coverage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search terms laparoscopic splenectomy, pediatrics, open splenectomy, minimally invasive and children were used individually and in combination."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the search terms used but did not provide a full electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Included studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and a third reviewer was required for a final decision in the case of any discrepancies."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Included studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and a third reviewer was required for a final decision in the case of any discrepancies."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome measures of our analysis was to evaluate the operative time, blood loss, and length of postoperative stay. Secondary outcome measures included an analysis of the removal of accessory spleens and postoperative complications including postoperative high fever, acute chest syndrome (ACS), and ileus."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "For continuous data, we presented mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous data, we calculated odds ratios (ORs)."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software ver. 5.3 was applied for data statistical analysis. For continuous data, we presented mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous data, we calculated odds ratios (ORs). Statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was assessed with the v2 test and the I2 index. A random-effects model was used in case of heterogeneous data. Otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used instead."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "As shown in Fig. 1 of the workflow, 21 of the 159 publications identified from the initial literature search were retrieved for full text review and 10 studies with 922 participants (508 received LS and 414 OS) met our total inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with a flow diagram.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Tables 1, 2 and 3 outlines the primary and secondary outcome results from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors presented characteristics for each study in tables.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Tables 2 and 3 outlines the primary and secondary outcome results from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors presented simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates for each study in tables.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis demonstrated that the LS approach had a significantly longer operative time than the OS approach with obvious statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99 %, WMD 42.22, 95 % CI 7.69–76.74; P = 0.02; Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, our study suggests that LS is a feasible, safe, and effective surgical procedure alternative to OS for pediatric patients. LS is associated with shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and longer operative times compared with OS."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our systematic review and meta-analysis have several limitations. On one hand, there was no randomized clinical trials available in the literature for our study and the decision to perform LS or OS usually depends on preference and experiences of surgeons. Besides, some of the included studies had rather small sample size. On the other hand, obvious statistical heterogeneity was detected among different trials in terms of operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, our study suggests that LS is a feasible, safe, and effective surgical procedure alternative to OS for pediatric patients. LS is associated with shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and longer operative times compared with OS. Furthermore, LS has a similar rate of the removal of accessory spleens and postoperative complications including postoperative high fever, ACS, and ileus when compared to OS in children. However, none of the ten studies included in our meta-analysis were randomized. Randomized controlled trials of high quality are definitely necessary and needed in the future to make our results more convincing and conclusive."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Acknowledgments The manuscript had been proofread by Professor Xin-He Lai, Institute of Translational Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledged the contribution of a third party but did not explicitly state any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

91. Feng 2015: Open Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniotomy in Children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to compare both of the surgical strategies as regards operative time, recurrence rate, postoperative complications by means of a systematic review, and meta-analysis of the available literatures."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their research question and objectives before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two reviewers (S.F., Z.L.) screened the citation identified by the search strategy."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two reviewers were involved in the study selection process, but they did not mention if the data extraction was also done by two independent reviewers.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We systematically searched PubMed for relevant studies reported from 2005 to 2014 with the keywords “laparoscopic herniorrhaphy”, “pediatric inguinal hernia,” and “open herniorrhaphy.” Total reference lists of selected articles were also included."
- Reasoning: The authors described their search strategy, including the database used and the keywords, but they only used one database, which does not meet the requirement of at least two electronic sources.
- Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Five randomized clinical trials with a total of 553 children (OH 278, LH 275) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies, but they did not provide detailed information such as age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Quality of the RCTs was assessed, including randomization, method of blinding, and allocation concealment."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "This meta-analysis favors LH in the repair of bilateral hernias and for unilateral hernias in extraperitoneal approaches’ group. Total postoperative complications were significantly reduced in LH, especially for major postoperative complications in male children."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions are based on the results of their analysis of the included studies, but they did not explicitly state how the quality of the studies influenced their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Weighted mean differences and odds ratios were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors described the statistical methods they used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Open Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniotomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Postoperative Complications"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract is provided at the beginning of the full text.
- Reasoning: The abstract includes the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "There is an ongoing debate about whether laparoscopic or open herniorrhaphy (LH or OH) is the best choice for inguinal hernia in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for their review in the context of the ongoing debate about the best surgical strategy for inguinal hernia in children.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to compare both of the surgical strategies as regards operative time, recurrence rate, postoperative complications by means of a systematic review, and meta-analysis of the available literatures."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, including the participants (children), interventions (laparoscopic or open herniorrhaphy), comparisons (between the two surgical strategies), and outcomes (operative time, recurrence rate, postoperative complications).
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide any registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included total available studies comparing LH with OH for the repair of PIH. The children were younger than 18 years when they underwent LH or OH."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We systematically searched PubMed for relevant studies reported from 2005 to 2014 with the keywords “laparoscopic herniorrhaphy”, “pediatric inguinal hernia,” and “open herniorrhaphy.” Total reference lists of selected articles were also included."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information source (PubMed) and the date range of their search, but they did not mention the date of the last search.
- Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We systematically searched PubMed for relevant studies reported from 2005 to 2014 with the keywords “laparoscopic herniorrhaphy”, “pediatric inguinal hernia,” and “open herniorrhaphy.”"
- Reasoning: The authors presented their search strategy for one database (PubMed), including the keywords used, but they did not mention any limits used.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two reviewers (S.F., Z.L.) screened the citation identified by the search strategy."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the process for selecting studies, including screening by two reviewers.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The first author independently extracted data from the included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction, but they did not mention any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Details of publication (type of repairing the internal ring, trocars, and follow-up duration), inclusion and exclusion criteria, and demographics of the enrolled patients were collected and collated."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Quality of the RCTs was assessed, including randomization, method of blinding, and allocation concealment."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Weighted mean differences and odds ratios were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.3 was used for data statistical analysis. Weighted mean differences and odds ratios were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Five randomized clinical trials with a total of 553 children (OH 278, LH 275) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors gave the number of studies included in the review, but they did not provide the numbers of studies screened and assessed for eligibility, nor did they provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Five randomized clinical trials with a total of 553 children (OH 278, LH 275) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors presented some characteristics for each study, but they did not provide the citations.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Compared with OH, shorter operative time for unilateral hernias was noted in extraperitoneal approaches’ group [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.71 to 3.71; I2 = 0%] as well as for bilateral hernias (95% CI, 12.18 to 3.79; I2 = 82%)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of individual studies, including simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Compared with OH, shorter operative time for unilateral hernias was noted in extraperitoneal approaches’ group [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.71 to 3.71; I2 = 0%] as well as for bilateral hernias (95% CI, 12.18 to 3.79; I2 = 82%)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not give results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our results show that LH is superior for the inguinal hernia repair in children, with shorter operative time for unilateral hernias in extraperitoneal approaches group as well as for bilateral hernias."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized their main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
- Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "This meta-analysis favors LH in the repair of bilateral hernias and for unilateral hernias in extraperitoneal approaches’ group. Total postoperative complications were significantly reduced in LH, especially for major postoperative complications in male children."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of their results and discussed the implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the sources of funding for the systematic review or the role of the funders.
- Response: [No]

92. Friedmacher 2011: Residual aganglionosis after pull-through operation for Hirschsprung’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

13 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We designed this meta-analysis to determine the incidence and outcome of RA among patients with HD following PT operation."
- Reasoning: The authors state that they designed the meta-analysis, but they do not mention a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients with HD who had undergone redo PT operations for RA or transition-zone bowel (TZB) after initial operation between 1985 and 2011."
- Reasoning: The authors mention two databases and the time frame for the search, but they do not provide keywords or MESH terms.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether grey literature was included in the search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Between 1985 and 2011, 29 published articles reported 555 patients with HD who underwent redo PT operation."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of articles included, but they do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Detailed information was recorded regarding type of study, gender, recurrent bowel symptoms, histological findings on repeat rectal biopsy, patient’s age at initial PT and redo PT operation, type of surgical procedures performed and postoperative follow-up with recurrent symptoms."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of characteristics that were recorded from the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention the use of the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention an assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Residual aganglionosis after pull-through operation for Hirschsprung’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose Most patients with Hirschsprung’s disease (HD) have a satisfactory outcome after pull-through (PT) operation. However, some children continue to have persistent bowel symptoms after the initial operation and may require redo PT. Redo PT operation in HD is usually indicated for anastomotic strictures or residual aganglionosis (RA). We designed this meta-analysis to determine the incidence and outcome of RA among patients with HD following PT operation."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, and methods, but it does not include all the required elements such as data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, results, limitations, conclusions, and implications of key findings.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Pull-through (PT) operations for Hirschsprung’s disease (HD) generally result in a satisfactory outcome [1]. However, some patients after definitive PT operation have disturbances of bowel function such as constipation, enterocolitis and recurrent obstructive symptoms [2–9]."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We designed this meta-analysis to determine the incidence and outcome of residual aganglionosis (RA) in patients with HD following PT operation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, but they do not reference all elements of PICOS.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients with HD who had undergone redo PT operations for RA or transition-zone bowel (TZB) after initial operation between 1985 and 2011."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the years considered and the type of studies included, but they do not provide a full description of the eligibility criteria.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients with HD who had undergone redo PT operations for RA or transition-zone bowel (TZB) after initial operation between 1985 and 2011."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases used and the dates of coverage, but they do not mention the date of the last search.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search terms were ‘‘residual aganglionosis’’, ‘‘transition-zone bowel’’, ‘‘redo and repeat pull-through’’, ‘‘reoperation Hirschsprung’s disease’’ and ‘‘postoperative follow-up and outcome Hirschsprung’s disease’’."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the search terms used, but they do not present a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Detailed information was recorded regarding type of study, gender, recurrent bowel symptoms, histological findings on repeat rectal biopsy, patient’s age at initial PT and redo PT operation, type of surgical procedures performed and postoperative follow-up with recurrent symptoms."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data that was extracted, but they do not describe the process of data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Detailed information was recorded regarding type of study, gender, recurrent bowel symptoms, histological findings on repeat rectal biopsy, patient’s age at initial PT and redo PT operation, type of surgical procedures performed and postoperative follow-up with recurrent symptoms."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Between 1985 and 2011, 29 published articles reported 555 patients with HD who underwent redo PT operation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies included in the review, but they do not give the numbers of studies screened and assessed for eligibility, nor the reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Detailed information was recorded regarding type of study, gender, recurrent bowel symptoms, histological findings on repeat rectal biopsy, patient’s age at initial PT and redo PT operation, type of surgical procedures performed and postoperative follow-up with recurrent symptoms."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the characteristics for which data were extracted, but they do not provide this information for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This meta-analysis reveals that RA and TZB are the underlying causes of persistent bowel symptoms in one-third of all patients with HD requiring redo PT operation. Most patients have a satisfactory outcome after redo operation."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations at the study, outcome, or review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "This meta-analysis reveals that RA and TZB are the underlying causes of persistent bowel symptoms in one-third of all patients with HD requiring redo PT operation. Most patients have a satisfactory outcome after redo operation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results, but they do not discuss the implications for future research.
- Answer: [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

93. Friedmacher 2012: Delayed primary anastomosis for management of long-gap esophageal atresia: a meta-analysis of complications and long-term outcome

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

23 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the complications and long-term outcome in patients with LGEA managed by DPA."
- Reasoning: The authors state the research question but do not mention a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Identified articles were reviewed by title, keywords and abstract by one of the authors (F.F.). An unblinded, standardized full-text assessment of relevant articles was independently performed by both authors (F.F. and P.P.)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two authors independently performed the full-text assessment, but it is not clear if this process was applied to study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles reporting cases of LGEA managed by DPA. Common electronic databases as MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2011 using a combination of the following terms: ‘‘esophageal atresia’’, ‘‘long-gap’’ and ‘‘delayed primary anastomosis’’. References lists of identified articles were screened for additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy using multiple databases and reference lists.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on publication status.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Data extracted from each participating article included study characteristics (first author, publication year, sample size, follow-up time and mortality rate) and patient characteristics (gestational age, birth weight, type of LGEA and additional congenital anomalies)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a detailed description of the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed. This enabled the calculation of incidences with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) for each specific complication."
- Reasoning: The authors describe using a meta-analysis to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests."
- Reasoning: The authors declare any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Delayed primary anastomosis for management of long-gap esophageal atresia: a meta-analysis of complications and long-term outcome"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Purpose Management of newborns with long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) remains a challenge for pediatric surgeons" [...] "Conclusion DPA provides good long-term functional results. However, the high incidence of GER and associated strictures requires early intervention to prevent feeding problems."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Esophageal atresia (EA) is a relatively common congenital malformation of unknown etiology with an incidence of 1 in 3,500 live births" [...] "Thus, surgical management of patients with LGEA represents a major challenge to most pediatric surgeons."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the current understanding of esophageal atresia.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The objective of this study was to investigate the complications and long-term outcome in patients with LGEA managed by DPA based on a meta-analysis of the published literature."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, including the participants (patients with LGEA), intervention (DPA), and outcomes (complications and long-term outcome).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles reporting cases of LGEA managed by DPA" [...] "All articles that did not contain original research data (e.g. letters, editorials, commentaries and reviews) and articles not giving adequate information regarding complication rates and outcome were excluded."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Common electronic databases as MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2011 using a combination of the following terms: ‘‘esophageal atresia’’, ‘‘long-gap’’ and ‘‘delayed primary anastomosis’’. References lists of identified articles were screened for additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Common electronic databases as MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2011 using a combination of the following terms: ‘‘esophageal atresia’’, ‘‘long-gap’’ and ‘‘delayed primary anastomosis’’."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy, but do not provide enough detail for it to be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Identified articles were reviewed by title, keywords and abstract by one of the authors (F.F.). An unblinded, standardized full-text assessment of relevant articles was independently performed by both authors (F.F. and P.P.)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The data was extracted into an electronic data-sheet in a standardized manner."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process, but do not mention if it was done independently or in duplicate.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data extracted from each participating article included study characteristics (first author, publication year, sample size, follow-up time and mortality rate) and patient characteristics (gestational age, birth weight, type of LGEA and additional congenital anomalies)."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for assessing risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed. This enabled the calculation of incidences with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) for each specific complication."
- Reasoning: The authors state that incidences with a 95% confidence interval were the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed. This enabled the calculation of incidences with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) for each specific complication."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The literature search resulted in a total of 223 articles, of which 207 were identified by electronic database search and 16 by cross-referencing" [...] "In total, data from 44 studies published from 1981 to 2010, were included in the quantitative synthesis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Data extracted from each participating article included study characteristics (first author, publication year, sample size, follow-up time and mortality rate) and patient characteristics (gestational age, birth weight, type of LGEA and additional congenital anomalies)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study, but do not provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed. This enabled the calculation of incidences with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) for each specific complication."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that the DPA provides good long-term functional results. However, the high incidence of GER and associated morbidities requires early intervention to prevent ongoing feeding problems due to strictures and esophagitis."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study, outcome, or review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that the DPA provides good long-term functional results. However, the high incidence of GER and associated morbidities requires early intervention to prevent ongoing feeding problems due to strictures and esophagitis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

94. Frongia 2013: Comparison of LILT and STEP procedures in children with short bowel syndrome — A systematic review of the literature

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 1 1 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was carried out using the search terms “bowel lengthening”, “intestinal lengthening”, “longitudinal intestinal lengthening and tailoring”, “LILT”, “Bianchi procedure”, “serial transverse enteroplasty” and “step procedure”. The last search was done on December, 10th, 2012."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a systematic literature search, but do not mention a pre-established protocol or research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "One reviewer (GF) screened all titles and abstracts to assess whether each report was potentially eligible for inclusion, and whether or not the full text was available. Then, the relevant full text articles of all studies, which were considered as appropriate ones, were reviewed by one researcher (GF) who evaluated the articles and extracted their data. Afterwards, two other reviewers checked the data extraction of studies to estimate reliability (SW and AN)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process where one reviewer screened and extracted data, and two other reviewers checked the data extraction.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was carried out using the search terms “bowel lengthening”, “intestinal lengthening”, “longitudinal intestinal lengthening and tailoring”, “LILT”, “Bianchi procedure”, “serial transverse enteroplasty” and “step procedure”. The last search was done on December, 10th, 2012. The reference lists of retrieved relevant articles were also cross-screened for additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a systematic literature search with multiple search terms and cross-screening of reference lists, but do not specify the databases used.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "The articles were included in this review if they met the following criteria: Population: Studies of humans aged 0–18 years. Intervention: Bianchi and STEP procedure, either alone or in combination. Type of study: All study designs were eligible for inclusion. Case series with 1 or more cases were included."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature or unpublished studies in their review.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Finally n = 39 articles with useable information (LILT n = 24 articles, STEP n = 15 articles), including n = 472 patients (LILT n = 363 patients, STEP n = 109 patients) remained to be analyzed and are reviewed here (Table 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of included studies, but do not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The median follow-up length in LILT reports was 51.8 months (6–111 months) [9,11,12,14,17–20,22–27,29–32], with reports of LILT series of even more than 20 years [9,23,32], while the median follow-up length in STEP reports was 23.0 months (12–68 months) [6,37,39–44], with maximum follow-up period of 5.7 years after STEP [43]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the median follow-up length.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Included studies revealed significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that the included studies have significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity, but do not provide a detailed assessment of the scientific quality of each study.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Nevertheless there are some limitations to be mentioned, as detailed evaluation of the impact of both procedures in children is limited by the nature of available reports."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions, but do not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the studies influenced their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "The statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Office Excel and SPSS 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). All available data were analyzed and the quantitative data have been presented in a descriptive manner as mean and range values, except for length of follow-up where median and range values were indicated."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to analyze the data, but do not mention any methods to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest: None."
- Reasoning: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Comparison of LILT and STEP procedures in children with short bowel syndrome — A systematic review of the literature"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: To compare LILT and STEP, the two principal procedures to lengthen the native bowel in children with a short bowel syndrome (SBS), by discussing the indications and presenting the outcome from published data. Methods: A review of literature was performed. N = 39 publications were reviewed. Results: For LILT and STEP, failure to achieve intestinal autonomy by conservative therapy represents the main indication, and end-stage liver disease the main contraindication. A sufficiently dilated intestinal segment is a common anatomical precondition for both procedures. STEP can be performed on shorter intestinal segments and on intricate segments such as the duodenum, which is technically not feasible for LILT. Both procedures have a similar extent of intestinal lengthening (approximately 70%) and result in improvement of enteral nutrition and reversal of complications of parenteral nutrition. STEP seems to have a lower mortality and overall progression to transplantation. Conclusions: STEP and LILT are both accepted procedures for non-transplant surgical management of SBS in children. The outcome after STEP seems to be more favourable, but larger series are needed to further assess accurate selection of eligible patients and to estimate effectiveness of procedures. A considerably higher number of cases for evaluation might be accomplished through the widespread use of a centralised registry."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a serious disorder in which the intestinal resorptive capacity is insufficient to provide an adequate alimentary supply [1]. The estimated incidence in children is 24.5 per 100,000 live births with a higher incidence reported in preterm infants [2]. The estimated mortality is 2/100,000 population/year for children with SBS under 4 years [2] and 37.5% of neonates with SBS [3]. SBS in children occurs after congenital or acquired loss of part of the intestine [4], in most cases due to gastroschisis, necrotizing enterocolitis, mid-gut volvulus and intestinal atresia [5]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the current knowledge about short bowel syndrome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The present review highlights most of these basic issues, first giving an overview of autologous intestinal reconstruction procedures with emphasis on LILT and STEP, then an insight into indications criteria for LILT and STEP and finally a comparison of associated outcome of both procedures from published data in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, including the participants (children), interventions (LILT and STEP), and outcomes (associated outcome of both procedures).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "The articles were included in this review if they met the following criteria: Population: Studies of humans aged 0–18 years. Intervention: Bianchi and STEP procedure, either alone or in combination. Type of study: All study designs were eligible for inclusion. Case series with 1 or more cases were included."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was carried out using the search terms “bowel lengthening”, “intestinal lengthening”, “longitudinal intestinal lengthening and tailoring”, “LILT”, “Bianchi procedure”, “serial transverse enteroplasty” and “step procedure”. The last search was done on December, 10th, 2012. The reference lists of retrieved relevant articles were also cross-screened for additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search, but do not specify the databases used.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was carried out using the search terms “bowel lengthening”, “intestinal lengthening”, “longitudinal intestinal lengthening and tailoring”, “LILT”, “Bianchi procedure”, “serial transverse enteroplasty” and “step procedure”. The last search was done on December, 10th, 2012."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used, but do not provide a full electronic search strategy for any database.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "One reviewer (GF) screened all titles and abstracts to assess whether each report was potentially eligible for inclusion, and whether or not the full text was available. Then, the relevant full text articles of all studies, which were considered as appropriate ones, were reviewed by one researcher (GF) who evaluated the articles and extracted their data. Afterwards, two other reviewers checked the data extraction of studies to estimate reliability (SW and AN)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "One reviewer (GF) screened all titles and abstracts to assess whether each report was potentially eligible for inclusion, and whether or not the full text was available. Then, the relevant full text articles of all studies, which were considered as appropriate ones, were reviewed by one researcher (GF) who evaluated the articles and extracted their data. Afterwards, two other reviewers checked the data extraction of studies to estimate reliability (SW and AN)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "In this analysis different parameters were evaluated. Preoperative data included age at surgery, intestinal anatomy, nutritional status, hepatic function and other co-morbidities. Intraoperative data included degree of intestinal lengthening and complications. Postoperative data included weaning from parenteral nutrition, weight and growth development, surgical complications, development of different preoperatively present conditions (liver damage, bacterial overgrowth, sepsis), intestinal redilatation, subsequent small bowel transplantation and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Office Excel and SPSS 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). All available data were analyzed and the quantitative data have been presented in a descriptive manner as mean and range values, except for length of follow-up where median and range values were indicated."
- Reasoning: The authors state that the principal summary measures are mean and range values.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Using mentioned search terms, n = 4282 potentially relevant articles were identified and screened for retrieval. After excluding n = 4010 articles due to failure to meet selection criteria for the purpose of this review, n = 272 potentially appropriate articles were retrieved for more detailed evaluation. N = 233 articles were excluded with the following reasons: article language other than English or German; reports of patients older than 18 years; articles providing insufficient data; double publications and review articles. To the best of our knowledge, after considering our “Inclusion and Exclusion criteria”, finally n = 39 articles with useable information (LILT n = 24 articles, STEP n = 15 articles), including n = 472 patients (LILT n = 363 patients, STEP n = 109 patients) remained to be analyzed and are reviewed here (Table 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The median follow-up length in LILT reports was 51.8 months (6–111 months) [9,11,12,14,17–20,22–27,29–32], with reports of LILT series of even more than 20 years [9,23,32], while the median follow-up length in STEP reports was 23.0 months (12–68 months) [6,37,39–44], with maximum follow-up period of 5.7 years after STEP [43]."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study, such as the median follow-up length, and provide the citations.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "After LILT a mean of 71.5% (4%–100%) of follow-up suriviving patients could be weaned from PN in mean after 10.3 months (5–21 months) [9,15,17–21,23–32]. After STEP a mean of 58.1% (20%–100%) of follow-up suriviving patients could be weaned from PN in a mean time of 9.4 months (6–16 months) [6,20,37,39–44]."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study, but do not provide confidence intervals or a forest plot.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "LILT and STEP are accepted procedures for non-transplant surgical management of small bowel syndrome in children. Larger series are needed to further assess accurate selection of eligible patients and to estimate effectiveness of procedures. A considerably higher number of cases for evaluation might be accomplished through the widespread use of a centralised register."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Nevertheless there are some limitations to be mentioned, as detailed evaluation of the impact of both procedures in children is limited by the nature of available reports."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "LILT and STEP are accepted procedures for non-transplant surgical management of small bowel syndrome in children. The outcome after STEP seems to be more favourable, but larger series are needed to further assess accurate selection of eligible patients and to estimate effectiveness of procedures. A considerably higher number of cases for evaluation might be accomplished through the widespread use of a centralised register."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Acknowledgments: The authors are very grateful to “Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie” for supporting this publication."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the source of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

95. Gallo 2012: Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: a Meta-Analysis of Jejunal Interposition, Colon Interposition, and Gastric Pull-Up

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this article was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children: jejunal interposition (JI), colon interposition (CI), and gastric pull-up (GPU)."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their research question and aim of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any process of duplicate study selection or data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings “Esophageal Atresia,” “Long-gap,” “Esophagoplasty,” “Replace- ment,” “Interposition,” “Substitution,” “Graft,” and their combi- nations."
- Reasoning: The authors described their search strategy, including the databases and keywords used.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "A total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number of studies included but did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A total of 15 studies (4 comparative retrospective, 8 retrospective, and 3 prospective) including 470 patients (264 LGEA) were identified; 344 (73%) patients underwent CI, 99 (21%) GPU, and 27 (6%) JI."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies, such as the type of study and the number of patients.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not discuss the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "To perform the statistical overview Comprehensive Meta Analysis software (Version 2.2.064) was used. Data were com- puted using a random effects approach."
- Reasoning: The authors described the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest None"
- Reasoning: The authors declared that there was no conflict of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: a Meta-Analysis of Jejunal Interposition, Colon Interposition, and Gastric Pull-Up"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Aim There is still no consensus about the optimal surgical approach for esophageal replacement in the case of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) or extensive corrosive strictures. The aim of this article was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children: jejunal interposition (JI), colon interposition (CI), and gastric pull-up (GPU)."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "There is still no consensus about the optimal surgical ap- proach for esophageal replacement in the case of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) or extensive corrosive strictures."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the rationale for the review in the introduction.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this article was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the most widely used techniques for esophageal replacement in children: jejunal interposition (JI), colon interposition (CI), and gastric pull-up (GPU)."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated the objectives of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Included were prospective, retrospective, and comparative studies. Case reports, earlier reports of the series that were republished by the same center, review articles summarizing results of previous series, and the publications that did not provide sufficient data for the analyses mentioned above were excluded."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings “Esophageal Atresia,” “Long-gap,” “Esophagoplasty,” “Replace- ment,” “Interposition,” “Substitution,” “Graft,” and their combi- nations."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and all human studies published in the English-language literature between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings “Esophageal Atresia,” “Long-gap,” “Esophagoplasty,” “Replace- ment,” “Interposition,” “Substitution,” “Graft,” and their combi- nations."
- Reasoning: The authors presented their search strategy, including the databases and keywords used.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All titles and abstracts were scanned and appropriate citations were reviewed. Also, a manual search of the bibliogra- phies of relevant articles was done to identify publications for possible inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the data collection process.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Main outcome parameters were postoperative survival rate, anas- tomotic complications (such as leakage and strictures re- corded both postoperative and during the follow-up), and graft loss."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Relative risks (RRs) were computed using JI as the standard to which the other procedures were compared."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measure used in the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "To perform the statistical overview Comprehensive Meta Analysis software (Version 2.2.064) was used. Data were com- puted using a random effects approach."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial search yielded 187 potentially relevant articles, of which 172 articles were excluded because of the failure to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A total of 15 studies (4 comparative retrospective, 8 retrospective, and 3 prospective) including 470 patients (264 LGEA) were identified; 344 (73%) patients underwent CI, 99 (21%) GPU, and 27 (6%) JI."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Mortality is similar: postoperative survival rate after CI was 96%, after GPU 90.4%."
- Reasoning: The authors presented summary data and effect estimates for each study, but did not provide a forest plot.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Mortality is similar: postoperative survival rate after CI was 96%, after GPU 90.4%."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "GPU and CI appear comparable regarding the main outcomes of the present study: postoperative mortality, anastomotic compli- cations, and graft loss. GPU seems to be associated with a higher respiratory morbidity but fewer gastrointestinal com- plications than CI."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "There are few prospective series, amounting to only 37 patients. Well-designed pro- spective comparative studies are lacking, major and minor postoperative complications are sometimes not properly defined, follow-up data are often deficient and when pre- sented they are not homogenously described in the different studies."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Concluding, from this systematic review of the most recent experiences in esophageal replacement for LGEA and extensive corrosive strictures, no surgical approach emerges distinctly as the best procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

96. Gosemann 2013: Open Versus Transanal Pull-Through for Hirschsprung Disease: A Systematic Review of Long-Term Outcome

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

24 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the available data on long-term functional results in HD patients operated with conventional transabdominal pull-through (OPEN) compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (L-TERPT and TERPT) reported in the recent literature."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors performed a systematic search on PubMed and screened reference lists for additional studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was included in the search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A total of 1,412 subjects with HD were included in this review (range: 10 to 192 patients per study). Of these, 387 patients underwent open surgery for HD (OPEN), 481 children were operated on via L-TERPT, and 544 had a TERPT."
- Reasoning: The authors provided aggregated data on the participants and interventions of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed to compare long-term outcome of patients who underwent OPEN surgery with patients who underwent L-TERPT/TERPT surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors used meta-analysis to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the likelihood of publication bias was assessed.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest: None"
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated that there was no conflict of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Open Versus Transanal Pull-Through for Hirschsprung Disease: A Systematic Review of Long-Term Outcome"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Introduction Various surgical techniques for the treatment of Hirschsprung disease (HD) have been proposed" [...] "Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Various surgical procedures for the treatment of Hirschsprung disease (HD) have been proposed" [...] "Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the available data on long-term functional results in HD patients operated with conventional transabdominal pull-through (OPEN) compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (L-TERPT and TERPT) reported in the recent literature."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the available data on long-term functional results in HD patients operated with conventional transabdominal pull-through (OPEN) compared with transanal approaches with and without laparoscopy (L-TERPT and TERPT) reported in the recent literature."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the research question with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether a review protocol exists and where it can be accessed.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Only articles comprehensively describing the surgical methods (OPEN, L-TERPT, TERPT) and reporting on major outcome parameters (soiling/incontinence, constipation, enterocolitis, and/or stricture) were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were follow-up less than 12 months, cohorts smaller than 10 patients, articles in a language other than English, series of total colonic aganglionosis, and publication in nonpeer-reviewed journals."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.”"
- Reasoning: The authors presented the electronic search strategy for PubMed.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Only articles comprehensively describing the surgical methods (OPEN, L-TERPT, TERPT) and reporting on major outcome parameters (soiling/incontinence, constipation, enterocolitis, and/or stricture) were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were follow-up less than 12 months, cohorts smaller than 10 patients, articles in a language other than English, series of total colonic aganglionosis, and publication in nonpeer-reviewed journals."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data extracted from included articles were study characteristics (authors, journal, publication year, sample size, surgical technique, and follow-up period) and patient characteristics (age at surgery, extent of aganglionosis). Specific information on the outcome parameters constipation, enterocolitis, stricture, incontinence, and soiling were collected and analyzed."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed to compare long-term outcome of patients who underwent OPEN surgery with patients who underwent L-TERPT/TERPT surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors stated that they performed a cumulative meta-analysis as the principal summary measure.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed to compare long-term outcome of patients who underwent OPEN surgery with patients who underwent L-TERPT/TERPT surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial literature search resulted in a total number of 148 articles published from 2008 to 2012. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
- Reasoning: The authors gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A total of 1,412 subjects with HD were included in this review (range: 10 to 192 patients per study). Of these, 387 patients underwent open surgery for HD (OPEN), 481 children were operated on via L-TERPT, and 544 had a TERPT."
- Reasoning: The authors presented characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide data on risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The mean rate of constipation was 21% (range 0 to 59%) in the OPEN group compared with 10% (range 0 to 27%) in the L-TERPT/TERPT group" [...] "The mean rate of soiling/incontinence was 33% (range 10 to 75%) in the OPEN group compared with 25% (range 2 to 88%) in the L-TERPT/TERPT group" [...] "The mean frequency of enterocolitis was 14% (range 3 to 31%) in the OPEN group compared with 14% (range 0 to 34%) in the L-TERPT/TERPT group" [...] "Seven percent (range 0 to 21%) of children in the OPEN group developed an anastomotic stricture compared with 9% (range 0 to 43%) in the L-TERPT/TERPT group."
- Reasoning: The authors presented simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates for all outcomes considered.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "With these data, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed to compare long-term outcome of patients who underwent OPEN surgery with patients who underwent L-TERPT/TERPT surgery."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the meta-analysis done.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide results of additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Functional outcome of different surgical techniques for HD is highly variable. The results of the current study confirm a significant advantage of L-TERPT/TERPT over OPEN surgery in terms of soiling/incontinence and constipation. In contrast, no differences were seen for enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Although the present review of the recent literature revealed a higher incidence of constipation and soiling/incontinence after OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT, these data need to be carefully interpreted. The following limitations of the present analysis and validity of the data on the long-term outcome in the current literature may be discussed" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The authors discussed limitations at the study and review level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques. However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports. Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

97. Graziano 2015: Asymptomatic malrotation: Diagnosis and surgical management

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

18 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee pro- posed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review."
Reasoning: The authors have established the research question and inclusion criteria before the conduct of the review.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that two independent authors were involved in the study selection and data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "Data were compiled from a broad search of Medline, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science from January 1980 through January 2013 for five questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation."
Reasoning: The authors have mentioned the databases used and the time period of the search, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series."
Reasoning: The authors have provided some information about the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "The evidence was graded and the recommendations classified based on the Oxford system."
Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "The data guiding management of this difficult group of patients are weak, but suggest that in asymptomatic cases, it may be better to wait for palliation of the heart defect before a Ladd procedure is offered."
Reasoning: The authors have considered the quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "An American Pediatric Surgical Association outcomes and evidence based practice committee systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Objective: Patients with malrotation, or an intestinal rotation abnormality (IRA), can experience serious adverse events. Increasingly, asymptomatic patients are being diagnosed with malrotation incidentally. Patients with symptomatic malrotation require surgery in an urgent or semiurgent manner to address their symptoms. The treatment of asymptomatic or incidentally discovered malrotation remains controversial."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Malrotation, also known as intestinal rotation abnormality (IRA), can pose a great risk to the pediatric patient owing to the potential for a catastrophic event such as midgut volvulus, ischemic bowel, and possible short bowel syndrome or death [1]."
Reasoning: The authors have provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The APSA Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice Committee pro- posed five broadly applicable questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation as the focus for this systematic review."
Reasoning: The authors have provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series."
Reasoning: The authors have specified the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "Data were compiled from a broad search of Medline, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science from January 1980 through January 2013 for five questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation."
Reasoning: The authors have described the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1)."
Reasoning: The authors have presented the search strategy used for the databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
Reasoning: The authors have stated the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
Reasoning: The authors have described the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "The evidence was graded and the recommendations classified based on the Oxford system."
Reasoning: The authors have described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "We retrieved 2322 citations that were cross-referenced and screened. Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
Reasoning: The authors have given the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Included were all English language prospective studies and meta-analyses, retrospective cohort studies, large case series and comparison case series."
Reasoning: The authors have presented the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis, so this question is not applicable.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not give results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "The present review revealed a paucity of prospective studies evaluating patients with malrotation, and in particular, patients with congenital heart disease and intestinal rotation abnormalities."
Reasoning: The authors have summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "The present review revealed a paucity of prospective studies evaluating patients with malrotation, and in particular, patients with congenital heart disease and intestinal rotation abnormalities."
Reasoning: The authors have discussed the limitations at the study level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "We recommend that each major institution evaluates their current approach to patients with asymptomatic malrotation and creates a consistent approach or an algorithm that can be studied and revised as needed."
Reasoning: The authors have provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

98. Guo 2011: Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy for non-palpable undescended testes in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

31 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Methods Published studies until August 31, 2010 were searched from Medline, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
- Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The citations and/or abstracts or full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that three reviewers independently evaluated and selected the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All published studies until August 31, 2010 were searched with the terms ‘‘laparoscopic orchiopexy’’, ‘‘open orchiopexy’’, and ‘‘children’’ from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "This review was limited to the published studies and no contact was made with the authors to obtain unpublished data."
- Reasoning: The authors explicitly state that they did not include grey literature.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Two hundred and twenty-six studies were initially found to report the laparoscopy in the management of NPT using the keywords ‘‘laparoscopy’’ and ‘‘non-palpable testis’’."
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A summary of the studies’ methodology, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes was provided in Tables 1 and 2, including 176 cases of LO and 263 cases of OO."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a summary of the included studies in tables.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS), who assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies independently."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In this meta-analysis, we demonstrate that the operative time, time to resume feeding and full activity is similar between LO and OO."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions are based on the results of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and ORs were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest None."
- Reasoning: The authors state that there were no conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy for non-palpable undescended testes in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Background Laparoscopic orchidopexy (LO) has been widespread used in the management of non-palpable testis (NPT) in children. However, the real advantages of LO over traditional open orchidopexy (OO) still remain exclusive. Methods Published studies until August 31, 2010 were searched from Medline, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational clinical studies (OCSs) with a comparison of LO and OO were included for a systemic review and meta-analysis. Results Out of 226 studies, 2 RCTs and 5 OCSs were eligible for inclusion criteria, comprising 176 cases of LO and 263 cases of OO. The hospital stay of LO was significantly shorter than that of OO (WMD = -0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95 to -0.37; P \ 0.00001). However, no significant difference was observed between LO and OO in operative time (WMD = 4.02; 95% CI = -9.89 to 17.93; P = 0.57), time to resume feeding (WMD = -2.29; 95% CI = -6.78 to 2.20; P = 0.32) or full activity (WMD = -9.71; 95% CI = -27.84 to 8.42; P = 0.29), recurrence (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.13 to 2.72; P = 0.51), viable testis rate (OR = 1.61; 95% CI = 0.30 to 8.52; P = 0.58), success rate (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.44 to 4.46; P = 0.56), and testicular atrophy (OR = 1.70; 95% CI = 0.49 to 5.98; P = 0.40). Conclusion Although shorter hospital stay is noted in LO, it does not provide significant advantage over open surgery for treating NPT. However, due to the publishing bias, a series of RCTs are necessary to explore the efficiencies of LO in the management of NPT in children."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The undescended testes (cryptorchidism) is one of the most common disorders of childhood, affecting 0.8–1.8% of infants at 1 year of age, 3% of full-term newborns, and 21% of premature babies [1, 2]. Approximate 20% of these cases represent non-palpable testes (NPT) that can be abdominal (normal or dysgenetic and high or low), intracanalicular, ectopic, or absent (true monorchia or vanishing testis) [1]. It has been established that abdominal testes may be associated with an increased risk of infertility and cancer [3, 4]. The incidence of carcinoma in situ is determined to be 1.7% among patients with undescended testes, especially among those 18–20 years of age [4]. Thus, early diagnosis and treatment of undescended testis are needed to preserve fertility and to prevent testicular malignancy."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In this study, we reviewed the current literature and performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the LO and OO, including intraoperative and postoperative follow-up data, in the management of NPT in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included all available studies comparing LO with OO for the treatment of NPT in children. Studies only comparing the LO and OO for the diagnosis of NPT were excluded form this study."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "All published studies until August 31, 2010 were searched with the terms ‘‘laparoscopic orchiopexy’’, ‘‘open orchiopexy’’, and ‘‘children’’ from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "All published studies until August 31, 2010 were searched with the terms ‘‘laparoscopic orchiopexy’’, ‘‘open orchiopexy’’, and ‘‘children’’ from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used for the databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The citations and/or abstracts or full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article with a predefined data extraction form."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data collection process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data regarding the following factors were considered: first author, study duration, methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, and outcome measures."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS), who assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies independently."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and ORs were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager 4.2.10 Software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for synthesizing the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Two hundred and twenty-six studies were initially found to report the laparoscopy in the management of NPT using the keywords ‘‘laparoscopy’’ and ‘‘non-palpable testis’’. Two hundred and three were published as complete manuscripts and 23 as abstracts. After screening all titles and abstracts, 129 studies were excluded due to review article or reports in adult. The number of studies was reduced to 97 by limiting the laparoscopic management of NPT in children with the keywords ‘‘laparoscopy’’, ‘‘non-palpable testis’’, and ‘‘children’’. Seventy-nine articles were further excluded due to no comparison with open surgery. After independent review, 18 publications dealing with comparison of LO and OO for the treatment of pediatric NPT were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Eleven of these studies were subsequently excluded for only comparing the diagnosis of NPT, leaving 2 RCTs and 5 observational clinical studies (OCSs) for systematic review [5, 9–14] (Fig. 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and a flow diagram.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A summary of the studies’ methodology, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes was provided in Tables 1 and 2, including 176 cases of LO and 263 cases of OO."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of each study and provide the citations.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Results Out of 226 studies, 2 RCTs and 5 OCSs were eligible for inclusion criteria, comprising 176 cases of LO and 263 cases of OO. The hospital stay of LO was significantly shorter than that of OO (WMD = -0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95 to -0.37; P \ 0.00001). However, no significant difference was observed between LO and OO in operative time (WMD = 4.02; 95% CI = -9.89 to 17.93; P = 0.57), time to resume feeding (WMD = -2.29; 95% CI = -6.78 to 2.20; P = 0.32) or full activity (WMD = -9.71; 95% CI = -27.84 to 8.42; P = 0.29), recurrence (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.13 to 2.72; P = 0.51), viable testis rate (OR = 1.61; 95% CI = 0.30 to 8.52; P = 0.58), success rate (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.44 to 4.46; P = 0.56), and testicular atrophy (OR = 1.70; 95% CI = 0.49 to 5.98; P = 0.40)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager 4.2.10 Software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In this meta-analysis, we demonstrate that the operative time, time to resume feeding and full activity is similar between LO and OO. Although the hospital stay of LO was slightly shorter than that of OO, this benefit may be less significant due to the one day basis of both procedures in most centers."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "However, due to the publishing bias, a series of RCTs are necessary to explore the efficiencies of LO in the management of NPT in children."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In this meta-analysis, we demonstrate that the operative time, time to resume feeding and full activity is similar between LO and OO. Although the hospital stay of LO was slightly shorter than that of OO, this benefit may be less significant due to the one day basis of both procedures in most centers. In addition, the recurrence, success rate and testicular atrophy were found to be comparable between LO and LO, suggesting that laparoscopy does not provide significant advantage over open surgery for treating NPT. However, due to the publishing bias, a series of RCTs are still necessary to explore the efficiencies of LO in the management of NPT in children, especially in the true outcome of orchidopexy and fertility in adulthood."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Acknowledgment This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30200284, No. 30600278, No. 30772359, No. 81071997, No. 81072073), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-06-0641), Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (2008-889), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2010JC025)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

99. Hall 2011: Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

19 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for IA in children after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM based on the current available literature."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the purpose of the review, but did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Data relating to the risk of recurrence of appendicitis, morbidity of IA, unexpected histopathologic findings after IA, and cost were extracted independently by 2 reviewers."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two reviewers independently extracted the data.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years). Furthermore, the index of all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, and the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery was searched for relevant articles. The reference lists of reports were also searched for relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors described their search strategy, including the databases used, the search terms, and the time frame.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics of the studies.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "To obtain estimate summary data for each outcome measure, we used a binomial multilevel modeling technique that may essentially be regarded as a “one-sided” meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the statistical method they used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Background/purpose: Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice. Methods: Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed. Results: Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up. After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8). No reports compared costs. Mean length of stay for IA was 3 days (range, 1-30 days). Conclusions: Prospective studies comparing routine IA with nonoperative treatment without IA in children are lacking. Available data suggest that 80% of children with AM may not need IA. A prospective study to evaluate the natural history of this condition compared with the morbidity and costs of IA is warranted."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice."
- Reasoning: The authors described the rationale for the review in the context of current practice.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for IA in children after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM based on the current available literature."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the objective of the review, but did not explicitly mention the PICOS elements.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years). Furthermore, the index of all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, and the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery was searched for relevant articles. The reference lists of reports were also searched for relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the search terms, databases, and time frame, but did not provide detailed eligibility criteria.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years). Furthermore, the index of all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, and the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery was searched for relevant articles. The reference lists of reports were also searched for relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A Medline search was performed using the keywords appendix mass, interval appendicectomy, and children from January 1964 to July 2009 to identify reports of successful nonoperative treatment of AM in children (b16 years)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the search strategy for Medline, including the search terms and time frame.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Titles, abstracts, and full text reports were analyzed. Only reports comparing IA with nonoperative expectant management in children after successful nonoperative treatment of an AM were initially considered."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Data relating to the risk of recurrence of appendicitis, morbidity of IA, unexpected histopathologic findings after IA, and cost were extracted independently by 2 reviewers."
- Reasoning: The authors described the data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data relating to the risk of recurrence of appendicitis, morbidity of IA, unexpected histopathologic findings after IA, and cost were extracted independently by 2 reviewers."
- Reasoning: The authors listed the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any methods for assessing risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "To obtain estimate summary data for each outcome measure, we used a binomial multilevel modeling technique that may essentially be regarded as a “one-sided” meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the statistical method used to obtain summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "To obtain estimate summary data for each outcome measure, we used a binomial multilevel modeling technique that may essentially be regarded as a “one-sided” meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method used to combine the results of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the number of studies included in the review, but did not provide the number of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, or reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics or citations for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented summary data and effect estimates with confidence intervals for each outcome, but did not provide these data for each individual study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of their analysis, including confidence intervals, but did not perform a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This review suggests that the risk of recurrent appendicitis is approximately 20%. Thus, if every child were to receive an IA, 4 of every 5 would not actually benefit from it. Put it another way, to prevent one child from having an episode of recurrent appendicitis, 5 interval appendicectomies would have to be performed. Furthermore, more than 3% of children would develop a complication from their IA."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and discussed their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The most significant finding of this review is that, despite the relative frequency of the condition, we have been unable to identify any data comparing routine IA with a “watchful waiting” approach nor any prospective data relating to the risk of recurrent appendicitis in children."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the review, including the lack of comparative and prospective data.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "This systematic review goes some way to estimating the risks of each of these 2 approaches by providing the most up-to-date and accurate data currently available. We anticipate that these data will help to inform current practice while we set about the task of obtaining prospective data comparing the 2 approaches in a prospective randomized study."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and discussed the implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No specific quote available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding or other support for the review.
- Answer: [No]

100. Healy 2015: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Influence of Surgeon Specialization on Outcomes Following Appendicectomy in Children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

43 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.9%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 62.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "This systematic article was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines."
Reasoning: The authors state that they followed PRISMA guidelines, but they do not mention a specific protocol or a priori design.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "In order to identify studies and determine eligibility, 2 authors (DD and MM) independently searched Medline and EMBASE up to June 24, 2015" [...] "Two authors (DD and DH) independently extracted data from eligible studies using an electronic spreadsheet."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that two authors independently conducted the study selection and data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "Two authors searched Medline and Embase to identify relevant studies" [...] "The reference lists of eligible studies were examined to identify further studies."
Reasoning: The authors used two databases and checked reference lists of eligible studies, which indicates a comprehensive search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: "In addition, conference abstracts from a variety of pediatric surgery meetings were searched by 1 author (EM)."
Reasoning: The authors included conference abstracts, which are considered grey literature.
Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Figure 1 summarizes the results of the search."
Reasoning: The authors provide a flowchart summarizing the search results, but they do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "Characteristics of the 9 included studies are shown in Table 1 and results from the studies are provided in Table 2."
Reasoning: The authors provide tables detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that they assessed the quality of the included studies using a specific tool.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "However, our article is based upon a group of heterogeneous and mostly retrospective studies, and therefore there is little external validity."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "Statistical analyses were completed using RevMan version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Pooled risk ratios and pooled mean differences were used to evaluate the effect of treatment by general surgery units or pediatric surgery units on dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively."
Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "The potential for publication bias was evaluated by visually inspecting funnel plots."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using funnel plots.
Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that they have no conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Influence of Surgeon Specialization on Outcomes Following Appendicectomy in Children"
Reasoning: The title of the report clearly identifies it as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Abstract: The aim of this study is to assess the influence of surgeon specialization on outcomes following appendicectomy in children" [...] "We found that children who were managed by specialized pediatric surgery teams had lower rates of negative appendicectomy although mean length of stay was longer."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Appendicitis is the most common pediatric surgical emergency" [...] "At present, appendicitis in pediatric patients is managed by both general surgeons and specialized pediatric surgeons; however, the influence of surgeon subspecialization on outcomes is unclear."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "Eligible studies were comparative and provided data on children who had appendicectomy while under the care of general or pediatric surgical teams" [...] "Eligible studies had to report on at least 1 of the following outcomes: normal appendicectomy rate, wound infections, intra-abdominal collections, readmissions, mortality, and length of stay."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and define the PICOS components.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol.
Response: [No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Eligible studies were comparative and provided data on children who had appendicectomy while under the care of general or pediatric surgical teams" [...] "We also excluded review articles, case reports, and case series and we limited eligibility to English language studies."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "In order to identify studies and determine eligibility, 2 authors (DD and MM) independently searched Medline and EMBASE up to June 24, 2015" [...] "The reference lists of eligible studies were examined to identify further studies."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "2 authors (DD and MM) independently searched Medline and EMBASE up to June 24, 2015 using the following search strategy ‘‘([paediatric surgery OR pediatric surgery OR pediatric surgeon OR paediatric surgeon] AND (appendectomy OR appendicectomy)].’’ The search terms were inputted as free text."
Reasoning: The authors provide the search strategy for two databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Titles and abstracts were examined initially and then full manuscripts were obtained to finalize eligibility."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Two authors (DD and DH) independently extracted data from eligible studies using an electronic spreadsheet."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Extracted data comprised details on the following variables: lead author, publication date, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcomes reported, whether there was a specified primary endpoint, main results, numbers and characteristics of patients, surgical approach, rate of negative appendiceal histology, wound infections, intra-abdominal collections, readmissions, mortality, and length of stay."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "Pooled risk ratios and pooled mean differences were used to evaluate the effect of treatment by general surgery units or pediatric surgery units on dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "We used Mantel Haenszel random effects models" [...] "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "The potential for publication bias was evaluated by visually inspecting funnel plots."
Reasoning: The authors specify their assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "Figure 1 summarizes the results of the search" [...] "A total of 1841 citations were excluded based on titles and abstracts. A total of 27 full text manuscripts were examined and 9 studies were finally eligible for inclusion."
Reasoning: The authors provide a flow diagram and give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "Characteristics of the 9 included studies are shown in Table 1 and results from the studies are provided in Table 2."
Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics for each study and provide citations.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: "Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "We found that children who were managed by specialized pediatric surgery teams had lower rates of negative appendicectomy although mean length of stay was longer" [...] "Figures 2 and 3."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data, effect estimates, and confidence intervals for each outcome, and provide forest plots.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "A normal appendix was removed in 4660/48,105 children treated by general surgery units and in 889/14,760 children treated by pediatric units (pooled risk ratio 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26–2.54; P ¼ 0.001)" [...] "Children managed in general units had shorter mean hospital stays compared with children managed in pediatric units (pooled mean difference 0.70 days; 95%CI 1.09 to 0.30; P ¼ 0.0005)."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: "The potential for publication bias was evaluated by visually inspecting funnel plots."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "We found that children who were managed by specialized pediatric surgery teams had lower rates of negative appendicectomy although mean length of stay was longer" [...] "However, our article is based upon a group of heterogeneous and mostly retrospective studies, and therefore there is little external validity."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "Regarding limitations, the main issue is the retrospective nature of most of the included studies" [...] "Furthermore, no randomized data were available and therefore our review is prone to biases and confounding."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "We wish to encourage future research through the use of large-scale prospective multicenter registries."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose."
Reasoning: The authors state that they have no funding or conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]

101. Healy 2016: Pediatric incidental appendectomy: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 NA NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Objectives: To review the available literature for techniques, pathology, risks of appendectomy, utility of the appendix, and IA in the treatment of specific pediatric medical conditions."
Reasoning: The authors state their objectives and research question at the beginning of the study.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Citations of retrieved results were manually reviewed for relevance to the topic of IA by two independent reviewers."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "In December 2014, a comprehensive literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE (1946–present) and Embase (1974–present) using the OvidSP interfaces."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search using two electronic databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on their publication status.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Data was collected to index the type of study, specialty, year, location, number of patients, and primary outcomes of each study."
Reasoning: The authors describe collecting data on the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention using the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so the authors did not need to combine the findings of studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Pediatric incidental appendectomy: a systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Incidental appendectomy is the removal of the vermiform appendix accompanying another operation, without evidence of acute appendicitis. It is generally performed to eliminate the risk of future appendicitis. The risks and benefits of incidental appendectomy during various operations in children have been debated for over a century, but need to be revisited in light of innovations in medical practice, including minimally invasive surgery, improved imaging techniques, and use of the appendix as a tubular conduit for reconstruction. A detailed review was undertaken of the techniques, pathology, risks of appendectomy, utility of the appendix, and incidental appendectomy in the treatment of specific pediatric medical conditions. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and retrieved results were reviewed for relevance to the topic. The decision to perform a pediatric incidental appendectomy relies on informed consideration of the individual patient’s co-morbid conditions, the indication for the initial operation, the future utility of the appendix, and the risk of future appendiceal pathology."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Rationale: Incidental appendectomy (IA) is defined as the removal of the vermiform appendix accompanying another operation, without evidence of acute appendicitis. Advocates for IA cite ease of resection, low morbidity, no additional anesthetic risks, high incidence of disease in specimens, and elimination of confusion over future conflicting diagnosis [1]. Opponents argue that transecting an organ containing colonic flora in an otherwise clean procedure violates sound surgical principles and increases operative time and morbidity. Prior to IA, a surgeon must consider the incidence of appendicitis and other appendiceal diseases, associated procedural morbidity, potential functions of the appendix, co-morbidities, and pathologic findings in incidentally removed appendices [2]."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about incidental appendectomy.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "Objectives: To review the available literature for techniques, pathology, risks of appendectomy, utility of the appendix, and IA in the treatment of specific pediatric medical conditions."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, although they do not explicitly mention participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, or study design (PICOS).
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "The search identified studies comparing the risks of performing an incidental or prophylactic appendectomy versus leaving the appendix in place. Basic science studies were excluded. Additional references were reviewed as needed for in-depth analysis of specific co-morbid conditions that may influence decisions to perform IA. Foreign-language manuscripts were included if translations were available."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "In December 2014, a comprehensive literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE (1946–present) and Embase (1974–present) using the OvidSP interfaces."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "The terms ‘‘Incidental appendectomy’’ and ‘‘Prophylactic appendectomy’’ returned 315 and 74 results, respectively."
Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used but do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Citations of retrieved results were manually reviewed for relevance to the topic of IA by two independent reviewers. If adequate information was not included in the abstract, the manuscript was reviewed, by default, to determine relevance."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Data was collected to index the type of study, specialty, year, location, number of patients, and primary outcomes of each study."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Data was collected to index the type of study, specialty, year, location, number of patients, and primary outcomes of each study."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so the authors did not need to state principal summary measures.
Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so the authors did not need to describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "From the initial 389 search results, 132 were selected as potentially relevant to our review, and the manuscripts were obtained. Upon review, 48 studies pertained specifically to IA."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Data was collected to index the type of study, specialty, year, location, number of patients, and primary outcomes of each study."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so the authors did not need to present results of individual studies.
Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so the authors did not need to present results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "With the development of useful applications for the appendix, and given the disease-specific concerns above, thoughtful consideration should be given to the individual pediatric patient’s co-morbid conditions before performing IA."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "The decision to perform IA needs to be carefully weighed in regards to the procedure to be performed, the patients’ medical history, and the likelihood of requiring the appendix for future use as a tubular conduit for reconstruction."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

102. Heloury 2012: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

7 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The authors conducted a systematic review of the pediatric and adult literature about MIA, focusing on the technique and indications."
- Reasoning: The authors mention conducting a systematic review but do not provide any information about a pre-established protocol or research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The authors conducted a systematic review of the pediatric and adult literature about MIA, focusing on the technique and indications."
- Reasoning: The authors mention conducting a systematic review but do not provide any details about the databases used, the years covered, or the search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the inclusion of grey literature in the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating the conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Review article: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy in children"
- Reasoning: The title does not identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis.
- Answer: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy (MIA) is the criterion standard for removal of small adrenal tumors in adults. The purpose of this review was to determine the place of MIA in children. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of the pediatric and adult literature about MIA, focusing on the technique and indications. Results: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy appears superior to open adrenalectomy for small tumors. The potential advantages of MIA are appealing for postoperative pain, risk of intestinal obstruction, and quality of scars. The most common approach is the transperitoneal lateral laparoscopy, which allows for a large working space. For small tumors or for bilateral adrenalectomy, the prone retroperitoneoscopy is a promising new technique. In children, the learning curve is an issue because the indications are rare. The most common indication is neuroblastoma without image-defined surgical risk factors. The incidence of local recurrence is low, but the follow-up is short in most cases. Conclusions: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy is promising for removal of small adrenal tumors. Long-term follow-up is required to evaluate the efficacy of MIA in neuroblastomas. Benign diseases are excellent candidates for this minimally invasive technique."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. However, it does not provide information about data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, limitations, and implications of key findings.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Minimally invasive adrenalectomy (MIA) is considered the criterion standard for adrenal surgery in adults [1,2], where it is used for benign or malignant tumors. In children [3-7], adrenal surgery is rare and is only indicated for malignant tumors."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about minimally invasive adrenalectomy in adults and children.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Based on an extensive review of the adult and pediatric literature, we attempted to answer the following questions: - Is MIA superior to open adrenalectomy (OA)? - What is the best approach (transperitoneal or retroperitoneal)? - What are the pediatric indications for MIA?"
- Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, but it does not reference participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the eligibility criteria for the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the data collection process.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the data items sought or any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, or the reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the characteristics of the included studies or their citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the results of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the synthesis of results.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Minimally invasive adrenalectomy appears superior to open adrenalectomy for small tumors. The potential advantages of MIA are appealing for postoperative pain, risk of intestinal obstruction, and quality of scars."
- Reasoning: The text provides a summary of the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the limitations of the study.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Minimally invasive adrenalectomy is promising for removal of small adrenal tumors. Long-term follow-up is required to evaluate the efficacy of MIA in neuroblastomas."
- Reasoning: The text provides a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide any information about the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

103. Huang 2015: An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 0 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1


LLM response

30 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 95.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We conducted this meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [10]."
- Reasoning: The authors state that they conducted the review according to PRISMA, but they do not mention a specific protocol or pre-determined objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Data abstraction was carried out independently by two authors (Yidong Huang, Yang Wu) and disagreements were consulted with the third one (Lugang Huang)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent data extraction and resolution of disagreements, indicating duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search of electronic databases including PUBMED, Web of science and Cochrane library was carried out between Jan. 1966 and Oct. 2014 to identify eligible studies, using the following words: “hydronephrosis OR ureteropelvic junction obstruction OR pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction OR ureteral obstruction”, “pyeloplasty”, “young OR children OR child OR kids OR pediatrics” and “laparoscopic”."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy including multiple databases and a range of search terms.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Studies regardless of the sample size will be eligible for inclusion if they meet the following criteria: 1). comparative study; 2). compared standard LP with OP; 3). proved sufficient data on outcomes of interest; 4). procedures should perform in children (less than 18 years old)."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including unpublished studies.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "290 publications from all above database were retrieved after removing duplicates. Among these studies, 37 studies were finally leaved behind for full-text assessment."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies retrieved and assessed, but they do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "16 studies including 2262 LP cases and 20455 OP cases were eligible and included in this meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive or systematic way.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Only one RCT was included in this meta-analysis and most of studies were retrospective, which may lead to select bias and recall bias."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the types of studies included and potential biases, but they do not describe a systematic assessment of study quality.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Considering the select bias and recall bias, more RCTs are required to further explore the efficiencies of LP."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge potential biases in the included studies and suggest the need for more high-quality studies, indicating that they considered study quality in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidential interval (CI) were used to assess dichotomous data, while weight mean differences (WMDs) were used to assess continuous data."
- Reasoning: The authors describe appropriate methods for combining study findings.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "We didn’t find any possible publication bias among comparisons between LP groups and OP groups."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing for publication bias, but they do not describe how they did this.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Disclosure of conflict of interest: None."
- Reasoning: The authors include a statement about conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: To further explore the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction compared with open pyeloplasty (OP). Methods: PUBMED, Web of science and Cochrane library were searched until Oct. 2014 to find eligible studies. WMD, OR, RD and their 95% CIs were used to estimate the difference. Baseline such as age, gender and crossing vessel, perioperative outcomes such as length of stay, operative time, overall complications, and success rate were compared. All the meta-analyses were performed in Revman 5.2. Results: 15 comparative studies and one RCT were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Compared with OP, LP groups might be associated with shorted length of hospital stay (WMD: -1.92, 95% CI: -2.45--1.39), reduced complications (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.49-1.01) and equal success rate (RD: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.02-0.04), but prolonged operative time (WMD: 48.64, 95% CI: 31.16-66.12). Conclusion: Our findings supported that laparoscopic pyeloplasty is feasibility and safety in the treatment of UPJ obstruction in children, especially in high-volume centers with experienced experts. Considering the select bias and recall bias, more RCTs are required to further explore the efficiencies of LP."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction is one of the commonest causes of hydronephrosis in adults, especially in children. And to date, open pyeloplasty (OP) has still been the gold standard for operative manage, though minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) have increasingly been adopted in pediatric practice."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge about the topic.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Therefore, we updated this meta-analysis. Considering the priority of RCT, we did not pool the data of one RCT with the other comparative studies."
- Reasoning: The authors state their objective of updating a previous meta-analysis, but they do not explicitly state the research question in terms of PICOS.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies regardless of the sample size will be eligible for inclusion if they meet the following criteria: 1). comparative study; 2). compared standard LP with OP; 3). proved sufficient data on outcomes of interest; 4). procedures should perform in children (less than 18 years old)."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for studies to be included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search of electronic databases including PUBMED, Web of science and Cochrane library was carried out between Jan. 1966 and Oct. 2014 to identify eligible studies, using the following words: “hydronephrosis OR ureteropelvic junction obstruction OR pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction OR ureteral obstruction”, “pyeloplasty”, “young OR children OR child OR kids OR pediatrics” and “laparoscopic”."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases searched, the search terms used, and the time period covered by the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search of electronic databases including PUBMED, Web of science and Cochrane library was carried out between Jan. 1966 and Oct. 2014 to identify eligible studies, using the following words: “hydronephrosis OR ureteropelvic junction obstruction OR pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction OR ureteral obstruction”, “pyeloplasty”, “young OR children OR child OR kids OR pediatrics” and “laparoscopic”."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a description of their search strategy, but they do not provide enough detail for it to be fully replicated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Data abstraction was carried out independently by two authors (Yidong Huang, Yang Wu) and disagreements were consulted with the third one (Lugang Huang)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process for selecting studies, including independent selection by two authors and resolution of disagreements.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Data abstraction was carried out independently by two authors (Yidong Huang, Yang Wu) and disagreements were consulted with the third one (Lugang Huang)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process for data extraction, including independent extraction by two authors and resolution of disagreements.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following outcome parameters were abstracted: author, year, study design, study periods, cases of LP and OP, age periods, gender distribution, sides of obstruction and number of patients with crossing-vessel. Besides, perioperative outcomes such as operative time, length of stay and overall complication rate were also abstracted."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which they sought data.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Only one RCT was included in this meta-analysis and most of studies were retrospective, which may lead to select bias and recall bias."
- Reasoning: The authors mention potential biases in the included studies, but they do not describe a systematic method for assessing risk of bias.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidential interval (CI) were used to assess dichotomous data, while weight mean differences (WMDs) were used to assess continuous data."
- Reasoning: The authors state the summary measures used in their analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Considering the heterogeneity of included studies, we conducted meta-analyses of all comparatives using random effects models."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their methods for synthesizing results and handling heterogeneity.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "We didn’t find any possible publication bias among comparisons between LP groups and OP groups."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing for publication bias, but they do not describe how they did this.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "290 publications from all above database were retrieved after removing duplicates. Among these studies, 37 studies were finally leaved behind for full-text assessment."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies at each stage of the selection process, but they do not provide a flow diagram or reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "16 studies including 2262 LP cases and 20455 OP cases were eligible and included in this meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive or systematic way.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Only one RCT was included in this meta-analysis and most of studies were retrospective, which may lead to select bias and recall bias."
- Reasoning: The authors mention potential biases in the included studies, but they do not present data on risk of bias for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis of the seven studies [4-6, 8, 13, 17, 18] revealed that pyeloplasty through laparoscopic approach might take more time than through open approach (WMD: 48.64, 95% CI: 31.16-66.12)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each outcome, and they use forest plots to illustrate their results.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis of 14 studies [2, 4-9, 12-18] which reported overall complications revealed that people might have less complication in LP groups than in OP groups (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.49-1.01; RD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.04--0.02)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analyses, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "We didn’t find any possible publication bias among comparisons between LP groups and OP groups."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing for publication bias, but they do not present the results of this assessment.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our findings of this meta-analysis revealed that LP groups were with less length of hospital stay and lower complication rate than OP groups. Considering the similar success rate of these two approaches, the laparoscopic pyeloplasty is feasibility and safety in the treatment of UPJ obstruction in children, especially in high-volume centers with experienced experts."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize their main findings and discuss their relevance.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "There are several limitations which should be taken into account. Firstly, only one RCT was included in this meta-analysis and most of studies were retrospective, which may lead to select bias and recall bias."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations of their review, including potential biases and the types of studies included.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Our findings supported that laparoscopic pyeloplasty is feasibility and safety in the treatment of UPJ obstruction in children, especially in high-volume centers with experienced experts. Considering the select bias and recall bias, more RCTs are required to further explore the efficiencies of LP."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of their results and suggest implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding or other support for their review.
- Answer: [No]

104. Ishii 2014: Flexible ureteroscopy and lasertripsy (FURSL) for paediatric renal calculi: Results from a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

19 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The objective of the present systematic review of the literature was to investigate the role of flexible ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy (FURSL) in the management of renal calculi in the paediatric population and to look at its efficacy and safety."
Reasoning: The authors have stated their research question and objectives, but there is no mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "The search involved finding relevant studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar and individual urological journals between January 1990 and March 2014."
Reasoning: The authors have mentioned the databases used and the time period of the search, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "A total of six studies were found to fit the inclusion criteria from the literature search. These studies were published between 2008 and 2014."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but not in a detailed or aggregated form.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Conflict of interest: None declared. Funding: None declared."
Reasoning: The authors have declared any conflicts of interest and funding sources.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "REVIEW ARTICLE: Flexible ureteroscopy and lasertripsy (FURSL) for paediatric renal calculi: Results from a systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract Objective: To understand the role, safety and efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy (FURSL) for paediatric renal stones."
Reasoning: The abstract provides some of the required information, but not all.
Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "The incidence of paediatric stone disease has risen in recent years [1,2], with many factors contributing to this."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The objective of the present systematic review of the literature was to investigate the role of flexible ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy (FURSL) in the management of renal calculi in the paediatric population and to look at its efficacy and safety."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question and objectives, but do not reference all elements of PICOS.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "The inclusion criteria were for studies written in the English language, reporting upon at least five cases of paediatric patients with renal calculi who underwent management with a FURSL."
Reasoning: The authors specify some study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "The search involved finding relevant studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar and individual urological journals between January 1990 and March 2014."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "The search terms included the following: ‘ureteroscopy’, ‘flexible ureteroscopy’, ‘pediatric(s)’, ‘paediatric(s)’, ‘children’, ‘renal’, ‘calculi’, ‘stone(s)’, ‘urolithiasis’, ‘laser’, ‘laser therapy’ and ‘lithotripsy’. These terms were combined using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to refine the search."
Reasoning: The authors present the search terms and strategy used.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "The studies fitting the inclusion criteria were analysed for the following: journal of publication; period of review; type of study; country of origin; population demographics (age and gender); pre-operative imaging modalities used; stone size; total stone burden and location; type of anaesthesia utilised for procedure; and type of pre- and post-operative stent use."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "The overall mean SFR across the studies was 85.5% (range 58.0e93.0%)."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measure, which is the stone-free rate (SFR).
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "A total of six studies were found to fit the inclusion criteria from the literature search."
Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies included in the review, but do not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or excluded, nor do they provide a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "A total of six studies (282 patients) were reported, with a mean age of 7.3 years (range 0.25e17 years). The stone sizes ranged from 1 to 30 mm."
Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the included studies, but not all.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "The overall mean SFR across the studies was 85.5% (range 58.0e93.0%)."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data for the outcome of interest, but do not present data for each individual study or provide effect estimates and confidence intervals.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis, as this was not conducted.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "The present review shows that, despite the small numbers studied, FURSL in the management of renal calculi in the paediatric population is an effective and safe procedure in high-volume centres."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "There are two main limitations to the present review. The first limitation is that all of the reviewed studies were retrospective studies and the results were not recorded in a uniform manner to allow the data to be meta-analysed. Second, the numbers involved in these studies were small and this may skew the results, as the authors may be reporting on their initial experiences."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "The present review shows that, despite the small numbers studied, FURSL in the management of renal calculi in the paediatric population is an effective and safe procedure in high-volume centres. To keep improving outcomes, these procedures should be undertaken by experienced surgeons who are familiar with the difficulties encountered in the paediatric population."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: "Funding: None declared."
Reasoning: The authors declare that there was no funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

105. Ishii 2015: Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the paediatric population: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of the present review was to look at the role of ureteroscopy (URS) for treatment of paediatric stone disease."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the research question but did not mention a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two reviewers independently extracted the data.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The search involved finding relevant studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar and individual urological journals, published between January 1990 and May 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors described a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A total of 14 studies (1718 procedures) were reported in patients with a mean (range) age of 7.8 (0.25–18.0) years."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest: None declared."
- Reasoning: The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Review: Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the paediatric population: a systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The full text does not include an abstract.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Paediatric stone disease has been on the rise in recent years" [...] "With constantly evolving technology and growing experience, this systematic review looks at the worldwide literature on the outcomes of ureteroscopic management of stone disease in the paediatric population."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of the present review was to look at the role of ureteroscopy (URS) for treatment of paediatric stone disease."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the objective of the review but did not explicitly mention the PICOS components.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "To be included in this systematic review studies were required to have reported on at least 50 cases of paediatric patients (aged ≤18 years) who underwent URS for stone disease, and their outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The search involved finding relevant studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar and individual urological journals, published between January 1990 and May 2013."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources and the date range for the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The terms used in the search included the following: ‘ureteroscopy’, ‘paediatric’, ‘pediatric’, ‘paediatrics’, ‘pediatrics’, ‘children’, ‘calculi’, ‘stones’, ‘laser’, ‘laser therapy’ and ‘urolithiasis’. Mesh phrases included the following: (‘Ureteroscopy’ [Mesh]) AND ‘Paediatric’ [Mesh], (‘Calculi’ [Mesh]) AND ‘Ureteroscopy’ [Mesh], (‘Paediatric’ [Mesh]) AND ‘Stones’ [Mesh], (‘Paediatric’ [Mesh]) AND (‘Lasers’ [Mesh] OR ‘Laser Therapy’ [Mesh]), ((‘Lasers’ [Mesh]) AND ‘Calculi’ [Mesh]) AND ((‘Paediatric’ [Mesh]), and (‘Ureteroscopy’ [Mesh]) AND (‘Calculi’ [Mesh])."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the search terms and strategy used for the databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the process of study selection.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors described the data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analysed for the following variables: period of study, country of origin, stone size and location, population demographics (age and sex), type of anaesthetic used, number and type of procedure performed, method of stone extraction, use of stents (pre- and postoperatively), SFRs, procedure failures, procedure-related complications and hospital length of stay."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any methods for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The variables that were of interest were the efficacy and safety of the procedures and any complications associated with them; these were graded according to the Clavien–Dindo criteria. The efficacy of the procedure was defined as the SFR and the need for any further procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any methods for synthesizing the results of the studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A total of 14 studies (1718 procedures) were reported in patients with a mean (range) age of 7.8 (0.25–18.0) years."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the number of studies included in the review but did not provide the number of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, nor reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A total of 14 studies (1718 procedures) were reported in patients with a mean (range) age of 7.8 (0.25–18.0) years."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some characteristics of the included studies but did not provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present simple summary data or effect estimates for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not conduct a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The evidence from the present review suggests that the use of URS in the paediatric population for stone disease as the first-line surgical management is a safe and highly effective procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and their relevance.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The present review has two limitations. Firstly, the majority of the studies reviewed were retrospective; only three of the studies included were prospective studies" [...] "The other limitation is that of publication bias."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The safety of this technique has been proven, with a relatively small proportion (8.7%) of the study population having minor complications; the most serious being Clavien grade III complications."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

106. Ito 2014: Does frenotomy improve breast-feeding difficulties in infants with ankyloglossia?

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The aim of this systematic review was to critically examine the existing literature regarding the effectiveness of tongue-tie division in infants with ankyloglossia, using the new grades of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) rating system."
Reasoning: The study does not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "An electronic literature search was systematically performed using databases including PubMed (January1966–April 2013), Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (Igaku Chuo Zasshi, January 1983–April 2013), CINAHL, and Cochrane Library using the key words “ankyloglossia,” “tongue-tie,” frenotomy,” and/or “breastfeeding” in English and the equivalent terms in Japanese."
Reasoning: The study mentions a comprehensive literature search in multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not mention the inclusion or exclusion of grey literature.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "The literature search yielded four randomized clinical trials, and 12 observational studies for analysis."
Reasoning: The study provides some information about the included studies but does not provide detailed characteristics.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "The quality of the literature was rated in regard to the two most important outcomes (sucking/latching, and nipple pain) and five less important outcomes (milk supply/milk production, continuation of breast-feeding, weight gain, adverse events, and dyad distress) in accordance with the GRADE system."
Reasoning: The study mentions the assessment of the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "The literature review supported an overall moderate quality of evidence for the effectiveness of frenotomy for the treatment of breast-feeding difficulties in infants with ankyloglossia."
Reasoning: The study mentions the use of the quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan ver. 5.2) of the Cochrane Collaboration."
Reasoning: The study mentions the use of meta-analysis to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not mention the assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "The author received no financial support for this study and there are no conflicts of interest."
Reasoning: The study mentions the absence of conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Review Article: Does frenotomy improve breast-feeding difficulties in infants with ankyloglossia?"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to critically examine the existing literature regarding the effectiveness of tongue-tie division in infants with ankyloglossia, using the new grades of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) rating system."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "The effect of ankyloglossia on breast-feeding has been the subject of controversy for many years, but ankyloglossia has become of increased clinical concern in the past two decades because of the resurgence of breast-feeding."
Reasoning: The introduction provides the rationale for the review.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "A clinical question was structured according to patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome as follows: in infants with poor breast-feeding and ankyloglossia (patient), does frenotomy (intervention), compared to lactation support alone (comparison), improve feeding (outcome)?"
Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the research question using the PICOS format.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Literature that focused on neonates and infants <6 months of age who had breast-feeding problems and ankyloglossia was selected for analysis. Patients who suffered from other oral anomalies and disturbances of the central nervous system were excluded from the review."
Reasoning: The study specifies the eligibility criteria for the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "An electronic literature search was systematically performed using databases including PubMed (January1966–April 2013), Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (Igaku Chuo Zasshi, January 1983–April 2013), CINAHL, and Cochrane Library using the key words “ankyloglossia,” “tongue-tie,” frenotomy,” and/or “breastfeeding” in English and the equivalent terms in Japanese."
Reasoning: The study describes the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "An electronic literature search was systematically performed using databases including PubMed (January1966–April 2013), Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (Igaku Chuo Zasshi, January 1983–April 2013), CINAHL, and Cochrane Library using the key words “ankyloglossia,” “tongue-tie,” frenotomy,” and/or “breastfeeding” in English and the equivalent terms in Japanese."
Reasoning: The study presents the search strategy used for the databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "The literature selection criteria included RCT and observational studies (cohort studies, case–control studies, and case series) that matched the aforementioned patient selection criteria. Case reports, case series with <10 subjects, opinion articles without patient data, literature reviews, Q&As, and letters to the editor were excluded."
Reasoning: The study states the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not describe the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "The primary outcome measures regarding breast-feeding problems associated with ankyloglossia and their relative importance are listed in Table 1. Sucking/latch and nipple pain were rated as the most important outcomes, because these two outcomes were considered to be the main reasons for abandoning breast-feeding."
Reasoning: The study lists and defines the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "The literature was divided into two groups: RCT (high-quality group) and observational studies (low-quality group). In regard to the RCT, downgrade factors of evidence level (risk of bias) such as blinding, intention to treat, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias were assessed."
Reasoning: The study describes the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "Effect size was measured using risk ratio in dichotomous data and mean difference in continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI)."
Reasoning: The study states the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan ver. 5.2) of the Cochrane Collaboration."
Reasoning: The study describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "A total of 505 titles and abstracts were retrieved with the initial search terms of ankyloglossia or tongue-tie. Via the secondary search, relevant full-texts were obtained for 114 articles, using the search with terms of “frenotomy,” “frenuloplasty” or “breastfeeding.” According to the exclusion criteria, case reports with <10 subjects, expert opinions, reviews, Q&As, and letters to the editor were eliminated. After adding four articles by hand-searching, four RCT, 12 observational studies, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, a guideline of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM), and a position statement of the Canadian Paediatric Society met the criteria for the review."
Reasoning: The study provides the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "The literature search yielded four randomized clinical trials, and 12 observational studies for analysis."
Reasoning: The study provides some information about the characteristics of the included studies but does not provide detailed characteristics for each study.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: "The literature was divided into two groups: RCT (high-quality group) and observational studies (low-quality group). In regard to the RCT, downgrade factors of evidence level (risk of bias) such as blinding, intention to treat, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias were assessed."
Reasoning: The study presents data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "The results of a double-blinded study by Berry et al. were less significant (P < 0.02), reflecting a placebo effect in comparison to those of a non-blinded study by Hogan et al. (P < 0.001)."
Reasoning: The study presents summary data and effect estimates for each study, but does not provide this information for each intervention group.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Meta-analysis of these two RCT indicated strong evidence (risk ratio, 2.88; 95%CI: 1.82–4.57) in favor of the frenotomy group compared to the placebo group."
Reasoning: The study presents the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The study does not present results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "The results of this systematic review are summarized in the evidence profile (Table 6). The results of outcomes consistently showed the effectiveness of frenotomy for breast-feeding difficulties."
Reasoning: The study summarizes the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "Further RCT with long-term follow up are indicated, but this type of study is always affected by ethics problems. In addition, it is impossible to conceal frenotomy or sham operation from the mother for a long period of time."
Reasoning: The study discusses some limitations at the study level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "The present literature review found an overall moderate quality of evidence regarding the effectiveness of tongue-tie division for the treatment of breast-feeding difficulties in infants with ankyloglossia. There were no major complications from frenotomy, most likely because it was performed by well-trained health-care professionals."
Reasoning: The study provides a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: "The author received no financial support for this study and there are no conflicts of interest."
Reasoning: The study describes the lack of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

107. Jia 2011: Open versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Pyloric Stenosis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.2%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Given the conflicting evidence of prior studies, the aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically and quantitatively evaluate all the published randomized controlled trials comparing LP with OP for infantile pyloric stenosis."
Reasoning: The authors state the research question and inclusion criteria.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent investigators extracted the data.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "An electronic literature search of all articles from inception to February 2009 was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Library, SCI, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, using the following text and keywords in combination both as MeSH terms and text words: “ pyloric stenosis” , “pyloros- tenosis” , “ pyloristenosis” and “ pyloromyotomy” in combination with “ laparoscop*” ."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Baseline characteristics of included trials are summarized in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "Furthermore, we assessed the quality of the studies using guidelines published in the Cochrane Hand- book for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [11] (namely sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other potential threats to validity)."
Reasoning: The authors describe their method for assessing the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "Therefore, the magnitude of LP compared with OP used in this systematic review was high quality with a low risk of bias."
Reasoning: The authors consider the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by the use of the I2 statistic, typically, values above 50 % are deemed to suggest large heterogeneity, values of 25– 50 % are deemed to show modest heterogeneity, and values below 25 % are deemed to represent low heterogeneity."
Reasoning: The authors describe their method for combining the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "No sponsors were involved in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report and in the decision to submit the report for publication. All authors had access to the raw data."
Reasoning: The authors disclose potential conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Open versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Pyloric Stenosis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Objective: Aim of the study was to compare the outcomes after laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) with those of open pyloromyotomy (OP) for infantile pyloric stenosis. Method: We conducted searches until February 2009 in multiple databases and identified randomized controlled trials comparing LP with OP for pyloric stenosis. Results were expressed using the odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and standard weighted mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook 5.0.1 guidelines and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0.8 software. Results: 3 studies totaling 492 infants were included. The results showed no significant differences in complications between the groups with regard to wound infection (OR: 1.77, 95 % CI 0.58–5.35), mucosal perforations (OR: 0.96, 95 % CI: 0.22 – 4.26), incisional hernia or granuloma (OR: 1.39, 95 % CI: 0.41–4.73), incomplete pyloromyotomy (OR: 0.13, 95 % CI: 0.02– 1.07), substantial vomiting (OR: 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.30– 1.52) and total complications (OR: 0.91, 95 % CI: 0.54 – 1.53). Although the combined result of 2 studies also indicated an insignificant discrepancy in time-related outcomes for full time to feeds, length of stay after surgery and operating time (SMD: 0.78, 95 % CI: − 0.50–2.06; SMD: 1.27, 95 % CI: − 1.56 – 4.10; SMD: − 0.46, 95 % CI: − 1.11 – 0.20, respectively), another study indicated shorter times for LP procedures (p = 0.002, 0.027, and 0.008, respectively). Conclusions: Only a few trials were available for analysis. Heterogeneity was seen between studies, but the available trials were of high quality. The present study shows that both OP and LP are equally safe and effective procedures for the management of pyloric stenosis in children. However, there was a trend in LP toward shorter time time-related outcomes."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Pyloric stenosis, also known as infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS), results in a functional gastric outlet obstruction because of hypertrophy and hyperplasia of the muscular layers in the pylorus. It is the most common cause of vomiting requiring surgical intervention in infants [1, 2] , affecting up to approximately 1– 4 per 1 000 live births [3, 4] . Pyloromyotomy is an effective surgical intervention with rare mortality and has traditionally been performed via an open technique since the early 20th century. Ramstedt pyloromyotomy is easily performed and associated with minimal complications [5] . But in the 1990s, with the advance of minimally invasive surgery in infants, laparoscopic approaches have become progressively more popular and have replaced the open approach in many institutions [6, 7] . However, the operative approach is currently debated in the literature following the use of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) and open pyloromyotomy (OP)."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "Given the conflicting evidence of prior studies, the aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically and quantitatively evaluate all the published randomized controlled trials comparing LP with OP for infantile pyloric stenosis."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Eligible studies were those that compared LP with OP for the treatment of infants with IHPS, and only randomized controlled trials was reviewed. The included studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes: complications during and following pyloromyotomy, time to goal feeds, length of stay after surgery and operative time."
Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "An electronic literature search of all articles from inception to February 2009 was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Library, SCI, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, using the following text and keywords in combination both as MeSH terms and text words: “ pyloric stenosis” , “pyloros- tenosis” , “ pyloristenosis” and “ pyloromyotomy” in combination with “ laparoscop*” . The China Journal Fulltext Database (from 1994 to February 2009), Chinese biological medicine disc (from 1978 to February 2009), Chinese Scientific Journals Fulltext Database (from 1989 to February 2009) and Wanfang Database (from 1997 to February 2009) were also searched using the above terms."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "An electronic literature search of all articles from inception to February 2009 was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Library, SCI, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, using the following text and keywords in combination both as MeSH terms and text words: “ pyloric stenosis” , “pyloros- tenosis” , “ pyloristenosis” and “ pyloromyotomy” in combination with “ laparoscop*” ."
Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy for multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus. For each eligible study, we recorded the author, date of publication, institution, sample size, study design, patient characteristics and surgical features of the study."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus."
Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "For each eligible study, we recorded the author, date of publication, institution, sample size, study design, patient characteristics and surgical features of the study."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "Furthermore, we assessed the quality of the studies using guidelines published in the Cochrane Hand- book for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [11] (namely sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other potential threats to validity)."
Reasoning: The authors describe their method for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "Results were expressed using the odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and standard weighted mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by the use of the I2 statistic, typically, values above 50 % are deemed to suggest large heterogeneity, values of 25– 50 % are deemed to show modest heterogeneity, and values below 25 % are deemed to represent low heterogeneity. We used a fixed effect model throughout the review as the measure of inconsistency was low for all comparisons, otherwise, a random effect model or standard effect model was used for the measure of high inconsistency."
Reasoning: The authors describe their methods for synthesizing the results of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "The literature searches yielded 461 potentially relevant articles. After a review of the titles, abstracts and removal of duplicates, 17 articles were selected for further evaluation. When inclusion criteria were applied, 3 randomized controlled trials with 492 infants were finally eligible for this study."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Baseline characteristics of included trials are summarized in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: "Using the quality assessment instrument of the Cochrane Handbook version 5.0.1 [11], we assigned ‘Yes’ for low risk of bias, ‘No’ for high risk of bias, or ‘Unclear’ for uncertain risk of bias. All studies described an adequate random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding. After retrieving included articles, no incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting were found."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias within each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "3 studies totaling 492 infants were included. The results showed no significant differences in complications between the groups with regard to wound infection (OR: 1.77, 95 % CI 0.58–5.35), mucosal perforations (OR: 0.96, 95 % CI: 0.22 – 4.26), incisional hernia or granuloma (OR: 1.39, 95 % CI: 0.41–4.73), incomplete pyloromyotomy (OR: 0.13, 95 % CI: 0.02– 1.07), substantial vomiting (OR: 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.30– 1.52) and total complications (OR: 0.91, 95 % CI: 0.54 – 1.53)."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by the use of the I2 statistic, typically, values above 50 % are deemed to suggest large heterogeneity, values of 25– 50 % are deemed to show modest heterogeneity, and values below 25 % are deemed to represent low heterogeneity. We used a fixed effect model throughout the review as the measure of inconsistency was low for all comparisons, otherwise, a random effect model or standard effect model was used for the measure of high inconsistency."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "Overall, this systematic review has shown a similar frequency of complications for LP and OP procedures. Furthermore, it also showed a trend toward shorter times for LP. Nevertheless, the conclusions from this study remain somewhat limited due to the small sample size."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "As with any systematic review, the limitations of this study reflect those of the individual studies. Most relied on information from databases. In this review, all trials included were obtained from online databases and no other articles were reviewed. Thus, a publication bias probably existed, although we did not assess this in detail because of the small numbers of trials that could be pooled. The heterogeneity of some variables in this study is also worthy of comment. 3 variables (full time to feed, length of stay after surgery, operating time) exhibited significant heterogeneity, as indicated by the I2 values which were all above 50 % . Possible explanations include the following factors [8] . First, the studies were all from different centers. Second, the procedures were performed by a number of different surgeons with different levels of skill and proficiency. Third, different centers may be at different points on the learning curve for LP. Moreover, the reintroduction of feeds postoperatively was based on protocols that differed among centers, and differences in feeding protocols are likely to strongly influence the time to full feeds and therefore increase the heterogeneity. The effect of different postoperative feeding protocols between treatment groups in individual studies on the time taken to achieve full feeds and the postoperative length of stay may be significant. An additional weakness was the fact that the number of RCTs and patients included is small, which has limited the ability to compare the relative efficacy of the treatments."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "These findings should encourage the development of future studies to assess the effect of the surgical approach on outcome measures such as postoperative pain, effect on growth and development, financial costs and the experience of the surgeons performing the technique in clinical practice."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: "No sponsors were involved in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report and in the decision to submit the report for publication. All authors had access to the raw data."
Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

108. Kapralik 2016: Surgical versus conservative management of congenital pulmonary airway malformation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature comparing the postoperative outcomes associated with elective surgery (while asymptomatic) versus those following surgery as part of expectant management (i.e., performing surgery only upon the development of symptoms) in children born with asymptomatic CPAM lesions."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research question and inclusion criteria.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "Two independent reviewers conducted all article screening; where consensus on an article could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted."
Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent study selection and data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "To identify all studies on elective surgery and expectant management of asymptomatic CPAM lesions, we conducted an electronic literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards), CINAHL (1982 onwards), and PubMed (1966 onwards) in January 2015."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: "We also excluded editorials, case reviews, any studies that did not evaluate postoperative outcomes, and any studies where it was not possible to extract data only on patients who were asymptomatic at birth."
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as part of their inclusion criteria.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Our electronic search yielded 342 studies. After applying our exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts, 63 studies remained. Full-text review resulted in eight of these studies being included, while an additional one was identified from hand-searching the reference sections of included articles; nine studies were ultimately included."
Reasoning: The authors provide a list of included studies but do not provide a list of excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "We did not identify any RCTs; all but one of the included nine studies were retrospective."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a detailed or aggregated form.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) to assess the quality of the included studies, as all were nonrandomized."
Reasoning: The authors describe using a quality assessment tool to evaluate the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "Our results should be interpreted with caution owing to the nature of the included studies (in that all but one were retrospective)."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "We conducted our meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3, using random-effects models, to produce an odds ratio (OR) for morbidity, as this is a categorical variable, and a mean difference (MD) for length of stay, as this is a continuous variable, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "Finally, it is likely that some degree of reporting bias exists, however this is difficult to assess, especially with a small number of included studies."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the possibility of publication bias but do not provide a formal assessment.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "The University of Ottawa Summer Studentship program provided financial support for this project."
Reasoning: The authors disclose the source of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Surgical versus conservative management of congenital pulmonary airway malformation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Background: The ideal management of infants born with asymptomatic congenital pulmonary airway malformation (CPAM) is controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing elective resection versus expectant management."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "There is much variation in the presentation and evolution of CPAM, ranging from prenatal death to respiratory distress in early life to entirely asymptomatic lesions."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature comparing the postoperative outcomes associated with elective surgery (while asymptomatic) versus those following surgery as part of expectant management (i.e., performing surgery only upon the development of symptoms) in children born with asymptomatic CPAM lesions."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, including participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "We excluded any studies on non-human subjects and those that did not focus on pediatric patients, as well as any studies that were not published in English, owing to resource limitations. We also excluded editorials, case reviews, any studies that did not evaluate postoperative outcomes, and any studies where it was not possible to extract data only on patients who were asymptomatic at birth."
Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "To identify all studies on elective surgery and expectant management of asymptomatic CPAM lesions, we conducted an electronic literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards), CINAHL (1982 onwards), and PubMed (1966 onwards) in January 2015."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "We used the search terms (“asymptomatic” AND “congenital” AND “cystic” AND “adenomatoid malformation”) OR (“lung” AND “lesion”) AND (“management” OR “treatment” OR “therapy.”)."
Reasoning: The authors provide the search terms used, but do not provide a full search strategy for any database.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Two independent reviewers conducted all article screening; where consensus on an article could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "One reviewer extracted all data from the included studies, and another checked it for accuracy and completeness."
Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Our primary outcome of interest was postoperative morbidity including respiratory distress, respiratory infection, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and death. Our secondary outcome of interest was length of stay in hospital following surgery (LOS)."
Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) to assess the quality of the included studies, as all were nonrandomized."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "We conducted our meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3, using random-effects models, to produce an odds ratio (OR) for morbidity, as this is a categorical variable, and a mean difference (MD) for length of stay, as this is a continuous variable, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "We conducted our meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3, using random-effects models, to produce an odds ratio (OR) for morbidity, as this is a categorical variable, and a mean difference (MD) for length of stay, as this is a continuous variable, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "Finally, it is likely that some degree of reporting bias exists, however this is difficult to assess, especially with a small number of included studies."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the possibility of reporting bias but do not provide a formal assessment.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "Our electronic search yielded 342 studies. After applying our exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts, 63 studies remained. Full-text review resulted in eight of these studies being included, while an additional one was identified from hand-searching the reference sections of included articles; nine studies were ultimately included."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "We did not identify any RCTs; all but one of the included nine studies were retrospective."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a detailed or aggregated form.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: "The MINORS scores for our included studies ranged from 7 to 14, with a median score of 9."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias for each included study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "Just less than half of these patients (n = 70, 41.7%) underwent elective surgery with 7 (10.0 %) cases of postoperative complications. The remainder were managed expectantly (n = 98, 58.3%), with 63 eventually developing symptoms between one month and seven years of age and consequently requiring surgery (64.3%); 20 experienced postoperative complications (31.8%)."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study, but do not provide confidence intervals or a forest plot.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "The results of this meta-analysis showed that total morbidity (number of patients who experienced postoperative complications) was significantly higher when surgery was performed after symptom development compared to resection when patients were asymptomatic (OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.40 to 15.11, P = 0.01)."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: "Finally, it is likely that some degree of reporting bias exists, however this is difficult to assess, especially with a small number of included studies."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the possibility of reporting bias but do not provide a formal assessment.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "Based on our results, we recommend elective resection of asymptomatic CPAM lesions, rather than expectant management. Lung resection in an asymptomatic patient is quite safe, prevents the risk of symptom development later in life, and may help prevent the development of malignancy."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "Our results should be interpreted with caution owing to the nature of the included studies (in that all but one were retrospective)."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Based on our results, we recommend elective resection of asymptomatic CPAM lesions, rather than expectant management. Lung resection in an asymptomatic patient is quite safe, prevents the risk of symptom development later in life, and may help prevent the development of malignancy."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "The University of Ottawa Summer Studentship program provided financial support for this project."
Reasoning: The authors disclose the source of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

109. Kunz 2013: Primary fascial closure versus staged closure with silo in patients with gastroschisis: A meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

36 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "The review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (Appendix 1)."
Reasoning: The authors state that they followed the PRISMA guidelines, which include having an 'a priori' design.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "Abstracts for all articles were independently subjected to preliminary review by two investigators (JA, SK) to determine whether inclusion criteria were satisfied. A third reviewer (JT) resolved disagreement between reviewers."
Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent review and consensus for study selection and data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "We reviewed Medline citations between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012 and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews database through June 1, 2012."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search of two databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: "Case reports, reviews, letters, abstracts only, non-English abstracts, and studies that did not address at least one of the outcomes of interest were identified and excluded independently by two reviewers."
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as part of their inclusion criteria.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 16 retrospective studies (Table 1)."
Reasoning: The authors provide a list of included studies but do not provide a list of excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "A standard data collection form (Appendix 2) created by the authors (JA, JT, SK) was used to extract information about study quality, including overall and per-group sample sizes, selection of method to close gastroschisis, inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis in the analysis; patient characteristics, including gestational age and birth weight; ascertainment bias; and reported patient outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors describe the characteristics of the included studies in detail.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "A standard data collection form (Appendix 2) created by the authors (JA, JT, SK) was used to extract information about study quality, including overall and per-group sample sizes, selection of method to close gastroschisis, inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis in the analysis; patient characteristics, including gestational age and birth weight; ascertainment bias; and reported patient outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors describe assessing the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "This meta-analysis demonstrates that in studies with less selection bias, silo closure is associated with better outcomes for patients with gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors consider the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "The data were analyzed using standard meta-analytic techniques."
Reasoning: The authors describe using standard meta-analytic techniques to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "Financial disclosure: None. Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to disclose."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there are no conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Primary Fascial Closure versus Staged Closure with Silo in Patients with Gastroschisis: A Meta-Analysis"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Abstract: Background/Purpose—Gastroschisis is the most common congenital abdominal wall defect" [...] "Conclusions—Silo closure is associated with better clinical outcomes in the studies with the least selection bias. Larger prospective studies are needed to definitively determine the best closure technique."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Gastroschisis is the most common abdominal wall defect in the newborn, and incidence is increasing worldwide, affecting 4–5/10,000 newborns (1, 2)" [...] "resource intensive congenital defects such as gastroschisis represent a significant burden to health care systems and, as such, are an ideal target for cost savings."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "This meta-analysis sought to identify the best closure method for newborns with gastroschisis by comparing hospital outcomes in patients receiving either primary fascial closure or staged repair with a silo."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "We reviewed Medline citations between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012 and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews database through June 1, 2012" [...] "Case reports, reviews, letters, abstracts only, non-English abstracts, and studies that did not address at least one of the outcomes of interest were identified and excluded independently by two reviewers."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "We reviewed Medline citations between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2012 and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews database through June 1, 2012."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "The search terms used were “gastroschisis” and [(“treatment outcome” or “prognosis”) or randomized controlled trials]."
Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used but do not provide a full electronic search strategy.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Abstracts for all articles were independently subjected to preliminary review by two investigators (JA, SK) to determine whether inclusion criteria were satisfied. A third reviewer (JT) resolved disagreement between reviewers."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Data abstraction was conducted independently by the same two investigators from the studies that met inclusion criteria. A standard data collection form (Appendix 2) created by the authors (JA, JT, SK) was used to extract information about study quality, including overall and per-group sample sizes, selection of method to close gastroschisis, inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis in the analysis; patient characteristics, including gestational age and birth weight; ascertainment bias; and reported patient outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "A standard data collection form (Appendix 2) created by the authors (JA, JT, SK) was used to extract information about study quality, including overall and per-group sample sizes, selection of method to close gastroschisis, inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis in the analysis; patient characteristics, including gestational age and birth weight; ascertainment bias; and reported patient outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "For each study, treatment effects were calculated using a fixed effect model to obtain weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "The data were analyzed using standard meta-analytic techniques."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: "To assess potential bias associated with subjective treatment allocation, sensitivity analyses were performed in which pooled estimates of treatment effect were calculated based only on studies that randomized closure method or in which closure method differed due to a temporal shift in practice within an institution."
Reasoning: The authors describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "The literature search yielded 365 articles (Figure 1)" [...] "Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 16 retrospective studies (Table 1)."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and provide a flow diagram.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "A standard data collection form (Appendix 2) created by the authors (JA, JT, SK) was used to extract information about study quality, including overall and per-group sample sizes, selection of method to close gastroschisis, inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis in the analysis; patient characteristics, including gestational age and birth weight; ascertainment bias; and reported patient outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study for which data were extracted.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "Estimates of weighted mean differences and odds ratios for individual studies are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study, with forest plots.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "In studies with less biased manners of selecting closure method (n=5), silo closure was associated with shorter TFiF, fewer ventilator days, and lower infection rates (Table 2, random/temporal group)."
Reasoning: The authors present results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: "In studies with less biased manners of selecting closure method (n=5), silo closure was associated with shorter TFiF, fewer ventilator days, and lower infection rates (Table 2, random/temporal group)" [...] "When all studies were included, primary closure was associated with improved outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors present results of additional analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "This meta-analysis demonstrates that in studies with less selection bias, silo closure is associated with better outcomes for patients with gastroschisis. The results also highlight the importance of assessing bias prior to drawing conclusions, as primary closure appears better when more biased studies are included in the analysis."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "There are several limitations inherent in this meta-analysis. First, we identified the following three major variations in study design: 1) manner of selection of gastroschisis closure method, 2) inclusion of patients receiving surgically sutured silos in the silo group, and 3) inclusion of patients with complicated gastroschisis (including atresia, volvulus, and perforation)."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Silo closure is associated with better clinical outcomes in the studies with the least selection bias" [...] "this meta-analysis demonstrates that further well-designed studies are needed to gain an accurate picture of outcomes after different surgical interventions."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "The Seattle Children’s Core for Biomedical Statistics is supported by the Center for Clinical and Translational Research at Seattle Children’s Research Institute and grant UL1RR025014 from the NIH National Center for Research Resources."
Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

110. Landisch 2015: Observation versus prophylactic Ladd procedure for asymptomatic intestinal rotational abnormalities in heterotaxy syndrome: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

17 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Our aim was to perform a complete and thorough review of all current literature on IRA in pediatric HS patients, to report the known incidence of volvulus among infants with HS, and to report the associated Ladd operative morbidity and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research question and objectives.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two independent researchers (R.L. and R.M.) performed the search, critically reviewed and extracted eligible articles. Two other independent researchers (A.A. and A.W.) confirmed the inclusion of appropriate citations based on study definitions and aims."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "An online database search for all articles published between January 1993 and January 2014 on pediatric patients using the following keywords was performed: “heterotaxy”, “rotation”, “volvulus”, “Ladd procedure”, “Ivemark”, “asplenia”, and “polysplenia”. Searches were repeated in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane library."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on publication status.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Overall, 11 studies met inclusion criteria which identified a total of 649 heterotaxy patients."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss the quality of the included studies in relation to their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Because of the absence of randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneous nature of studies, a formal meta-analysis was not performed."
- Reasoning: The authors explain why they did not perform a meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Observation versus prophylactic Ladd procedure for asymptomatic intestinal rotational abnormalities in heterotaxy syndrome: A systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Reasoning: The abstract includes background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Heterotaxy syndrome (HS), a consequence of aberrations in left-to-right positional signaling in early embryonic development, manifests as cardiac and visceral anatomic malpositioning. Forty percent to 90% of patients with HS also have intestinal rotational abnormalities (IRA) [1]. Improved survival secondary to advances in cardiac surgery and critical care management has led to enhanced prioritization of intestinal abnormalities, namely, prevention of midgut volvulus [2]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Our aim was to perform a complete and thorough review of all current literature on IRA in pediatric HS patients, to report the known incidence of volvulus among infants with HS, and to report the associated Ladd operative morbidity and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Exclusion criteria were non-English language articles, case reports, case studies with three patients or less, and studies without outcomes data."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "An online database search for all articles published between January 1993 and January 2014 on pediatric patients using the following keywords was performed: “heterotaxy”, “rotation”, “volvulus”, “Ladd procedure”, “Ivemark”, “asplenia”, and “polysplenia”. Searches were repeated in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane library."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date range for the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "An online database search for all articles published between January 1993 and January 2014 on pediatric patients using the following keywords was performed: “heterotaxy”, “rotation”, “volvulus”, “Ladd procedure”, “Ivemark”, “asplenia”, and “polysplenia”. Searches were repeated in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane library."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy for multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two independent researchers (R.L. and R.M.) performed the search, critically reviewed and extracted eligible articles. Two other independent researchers (A.A. and A.W.) confirmed the inclusion of appropriate citations based on study definitions and aims."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two independent researchers (R.L. and R.M.) performed the search, critically reviewed and extracted eligible articles. Two other independent researchers (A.A. and A.W.) confirmed the inclusion of appropriate citations based on study definitions and aims."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Primary outcomes were defined as volvulus and 30-day (perioperative) Ladd procedure mortality. Secondary outcomes included overall mortality, 30-day (perioperative) complications and overall complications."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Because of the absence of randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneous nature of studies, a formal meta-analysis was not performed."
- Reasoning: The authors explain why they did not perform a meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Overall, 11 studies met inclusion criteria which identified a total of 649 heterotaxy patients."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies included in the review, but do not provide the number of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, or reasons for exclusions.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Overall, 11 studies met inclusion criteria which identified a total of 649 heterotaxy patients."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This systematic review found the overall risk of volvulus in all HS patients to be 1.2%; only 5% of patients who were taken to the operating room for a Ladd procedure had volvulus."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss their relevance.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "This systematic review is limited by disparities and inconsistency of data extracted from principally retrospective studies which are discussed above."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Despite the low risk of volvulus in the data presented here, there are anecdotal cases of patients with HS who presented with volvulus that resulted in death. At this time, it remains difficult to definitively ascertain whether the risk of death from prophylactic Ladd in HS or the risk of death owing to volvulus in patients with HS who are observed is greater. A randomized, prospective trial to determine which subsets of patients with HS have the highest risk of volvulus is needed in order to optimize the care of this patient population."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

111. Lane 2010: Paediatric sutureless circumcision: a systematic literature review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

5 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "In 2001, Subramaniam and Jacobsen looked at the advantages of tissue glue versus sutures for circumcision in children. They conducted a prospective randomised controlled study over a period of 3 months in 2001 and recruited 152 boys."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a prospective randomized controlled study, but there is no explicit mention of a pre-determined research question or inclusion criteria.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether a comprehensive literature search was performed.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the status of publication was used as an inclusion criterion.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "In 2001, Subramaniam and Jacobsen looked at the advantages of tissue glue versus sutures for circumcision in children. They conducted a prospective randomised controlled study over a period of 3 months in 2001 and recruited 152 boys."
- Reasoning: The text provides some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was assessed and documented.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was used appropriately in formulating conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the methods used to combine the findings of studies were appropriate.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the likelihood of publication bias was assessed.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the conflict of interest was included.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Paediatric sutureless circumcision: a systematic literature review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic literature review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Circumcision can be undertaken using a variety of techniques. For the technique to be successful, it should be easy to perform, avoid excessive haemorrhage and achieve a good cosmetic and functional result with minimal postoperative care. Naturally, there are differences between circumcision in the paediatric and adult populations and here we review the literature on recent advances that have been made in paediatric circumcision and the use of a sutureless technique with tissue glue for wound approximation."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides some information but does not include all the necessary elements such as data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, and systematic review registration number.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Circumcision is one of the most commonly performed operations [1], with various recognised techniques."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed, and registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on all information sources in the search and date last searched.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on results of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on results of each meta-analysis done.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, sutureless circumcision in children appears to have significant advantages to the standard closure using interrupted sutures."
- Reasoning: The text provides a summary of the main findings but does not consider their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [No]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on limitations at study and outcome level, and at review-level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, sutureless circumcision in children appears to have significant advantages to the standard closure using interrupted sutures."
- Reasoning: The text provides a general interpretation of the results but does not discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
- Answer: [No]

112. Lansdale 2010: Neonatal Endosurgical Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Trials databases for studies comparing open with endosurgical CDH repair."
- Reasoning: The authors state that they had a pre-determined plan for their systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if there was a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Trials databases for studies comparing open with endosurgical CDH repair."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the databases they searched, but they do not provide the search strategy or the keywords used.
- Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "The electronic search identified a total of 292 studies. Exclusions were made as detailed in the flow chart (Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flow chart detailing the number of studies identified and excluded, but they do not provide a list of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The 3 included studies compare series of neonatal thoracoscopic and open CDH repairs performed at the same institutions."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "All studies had limitations, including use of historical controls."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the limitations of the included studies, but they do not provide a detailed assessment of their scientific quality.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "This meta-analysis of methodologically limited comparative studies indicates neonatal thoracoscopic CDH repair has increased recurrence risk and operative time compared with open repair."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analysis used a fixed effects model and was reported in accordance with PRISMA."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method they used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "E.C.J. is supported by a New Investigator Award from the UK Medical Research Council; N.L. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Training Fellowship and was previously supported by the Royal College of Surgeons of England."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose their sources of funding.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Neonatal Endosurgical Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The abstract is not provided in the provided text.
- Response: [NA]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Historically a surgical emergency, neonatal CDH repair is now deferred pending stabilization of characteristically labile cardiopulmonary physiology."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for their review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We have therefore asked whether MIS approaches to neonatal CDH repair are associated with changes in survival, CDH recurrence risk, operative time, and/or prosthetic patch usage."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and the PICOS components.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if a review protocol exists or if it was registered.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review and meta-analysis if they directly compared open and endosurgical CDH repair in the newborn infant and included outcome data regarding survival, CDH recurrence, prosthetic patch use, and operative time."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to present) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were searched using the keywords ‘diaphragmatic hernia AND thoracoscopic,’ ‘diaphragmatic hernia AND laparoscopic,’ and ‘diaphragmatic hernia AND minimally-invasive.’ Relevant conference proceedings were also searched for abstracts of appropriate studies. Finally, citations of relevant full text reports were hand-searched for any additional studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources they used in their search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to present) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were searched using the keywords ‘diaphragmatic hernia AND thoracoscopic,’ ‘diaphragmatic hernia AND laparoscopic,’ and ‘diaphragmatic hernia AND minimally-invasive.’"
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about their search strategy, but they do not provide enough detail for it to be repeated.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The electronic search identified a total of 292 studies. Exclusions were made as detailed in the flow chart (Fig. 2). Search of conference proceedings yielded a further, unpublished study, resulting in 3 studies being incorporated in the meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process they used to select studies for inclusion in the review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following demographic data was sought for each group: proportion of male sex, proportion with left-sided CDH, mean birth weight, mean gestational age, APGAR score at 1 minute, proportion requiring ECMO, and proportion with significant associated anomalies. The average duration of follow-up for each group was also noted."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "All studies had limitations, including use of historical controls."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the limitations of the included studies, but they do not describe a method for assessing risk of bias.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Treatment effect sizes were calculated and presented as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables; along with 95% confidence intervals in each case."
- Reasoning: The authors state the summary measures they used in their analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Data meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.0 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008). Weighted treatment effect was calculated using the fixed effects model."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods they used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if they assessed the risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if they performed any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The electronic search identified a total of 292 studies. Exclusions were made as detailed in the flow chart (Fig. 2). Search of conference proceedings yielded a further, unpublished study, resulting in 3 studies being incorporated in the meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, and they provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The 3 included studies compare series of neonatal thoracoscopic and open CDH repairs performed at the same institutions."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics or citations.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "All studies had limitations, including use of historical controls."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the limitations of the included studies, but they do not provide a detailed assessment of risk of bias.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Results from the individual studies for the primary and secondary outcome measures are included in forest plots (Fig. 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data, effect estimates, and confidence intervals for each study, and they provide forest plots.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis reveals that recurrence was higher (RR: 3.21 1.11, 9.29, P  0.03) and operative time was longer (WMD: 50.38 minutes 31.79, 68.97, P  0.00001) in the endosurgical group."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention if they performed any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This meta-analysis of methodologically limited comparative studies indicates neonatal thoracoscopic CDH repair has increased recurrence risk and operative time compared with open repair: although survival and patch usage appear comparable, such similarities may be subject to type 2 error as well as biases."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of their review and discuss the strength of the evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "However, these findings need to be considered in the context of the methodological limitations of the studies available for inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Better quality evidence is therefore required. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses frequently conclude with calls for more randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In contrast, we call for prospective, comprehensive, multi-institutional registry data on neonatal endosurgical CDH repair."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of their results and discuss the implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "E.C.J. is supported by a New Investigator Award from the UK Medical Research Council; N.L. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Training Fellowship and was previously supported by the Royal College of Surgeons of England."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose their sources of funding.
- Response: [Yes]

113. Lee 2010: Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 NA NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 1 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

18 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children." "Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions: (1) What perioperative antibiotics should be used for pediatric patients with nonperforated appendicitis? (2) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with appendectomy: a. What perioperative intravenous antibiotics should be used? b. How long should perioperative intravenous antibiotics be used? c. Should oral antibiotics be used? (3) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with initial nonoperative management, what antibiotics should be used in the initial management?"
Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and inclusion criteria.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "Data were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and citation review." "PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the HTA Database were used as well."
Reasoning: The authors used multiple databases for their literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was included in the search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Overall, 126 studies were selected and reviewed. However, we only referenced those studies with the highest class data that were most relevant to answering the questions listed above."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies reviewed but do not provide their characteristics.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "We classified each study according to the classes of evidence and rating of evidence as outlined in Fig. 1 [2]."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "Once guidelines were established, grades were assigned based on the strength of the studies supporting the recommendation [3]."
Reasoning: The authors used the quality of the studies to formulate their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on how the findings of the studies were combined.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether publication bias was assessed.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic Review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Objective: The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children. Data Source: Data were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and citation review. Study Selection: We conducted a literature search using “appendicitis” combined with “antibiotics” with children as the target patient population. Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions: (1) What perioperative antibiotics should be used for pediatric patients with nonperforated appendicitis? (2) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with appendectomy: a. What perioperative intravenous antibiotics should be used? b. How long should perioperative intravenous antibiotics be used? c. Should oral antibiotics be used? (3) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with initial nonoperative management, what antibiotics should be used in the initial management? Results: Children with nonperforated appendicitis should receive preoperative, broad-spectrum antibiotics. In children with perforated appendicitis who had undergone appendectomy, intravenous antibiotic duration should be based on clinical criteria. Furthermore, broad-spectrum, single, or double agent therapy is as equally efficacious as but is more cost-effective than triple agent therapy. If intravenous antibiotics are administered for less than 5 days, oral antibiotics should be administered for a total antibiotic course of 7 days. For children with perforated appendicitis who did not initially undergo an appendectomy, the duration of broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics should be based on clinical symptoms. Conclusions: Current evidence supports the use of guidelines as described above for antibiotic therapy in children with acute and perforated appendicitis."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in the pediatric population. Despite the widespread prevalence of the disease, there is little consensus regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis. In 2000, a survey of all members of the American Pediatric Surgical Association demonstrated controversy in virtually every aspect of the management of appendicitis [1]. With respect to antibiotic therapy, there was considerable variability in the choice, duration, and route of administration of antibiotics for both acute and perforated appendicitis. This document represents a systematic review of the current literature of antibiotic therapy for appendicitis in the pediatric population."
Reasoning: The authors provide the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children. Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions: (1) What perioperative antibiotics should be used for pediatric patients with nonperforated appendicitis? (2) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with appendectomy: a. What perioperative intravenous antibiotics should be used? b. How long should perioperative intravenous antibiotics be used? c. Should oral antibiotics be used? (3) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with initial nonoperative management, what antibiotics should be used in the initial management?"
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether a review protocol exists and where it can be accessed.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the HTA Database were used as well. Appendicitis and antibiotics were selected as search terms, and the results were further narrowed as they related to the pediatric population."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the HTA Database were used as well."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Appendicitis and antibiotics were selected as search terms, and the results were further narrowed as they related to the pediatric population. Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions: (1) What perioperative antibiotics should be used for pediatric patients with nonperforated appendicitis? (2) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with appendectomy: a. What perioperative intravenous antibiotics should be used? b. How long should perioperative intravenous antibiotics be used? c. Should oral antibiotics be used? (3) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with initial nonoperative management, what antibiotics should be used in the initial management?"
Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "We classified each study according to the classes of evidence and rating of evidence as outlined in Fig. 1 [2]."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [NA]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "Overall, 126 studies were selected and reviewed. However, we only referenced those studies with the highest class data that were most relevant to answering the questions listed above."
Reasoning: The authors give the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present characteristics for each study.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of each meta-analysis done.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "Summary of recommendations: 1. In patients with nonperforated appendicitis, there is strong evidence that children should receive preoperative broad-spectrum antibiotics (Grade A). 2. Broad-spectrum, single, or double agent therapy is as effective as and more cost-effective than triple agent therapy for the treatment of perforated appendicitis (Grade B). 3. The length of administration of IV antibiotics for children with perforated appendicitis should be based on clinical criteria, such as fever, pain, return of bowel function, and WBC count (Grade B). 4. In children with perforated appendicitis, a 5-day course of IV antibiotics is recommended. IV antibiotics are given initially, but completing the antibiotic course with oral antibiotics (total 7 days IV + oral) had similar results compared to a minimum 5-day course of IV antibiotics (Grade B). 5. The duration of administration of broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis should be based on clinical criteria (Grade D)."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations at study and outcome level, and at review-level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Conclusions: Current evidence supports the use of guidelines as described above for antibiotic therapy in children with acute and perforated appendicitis."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
Response: [No]

114. LeeVan 2016: Management of pediatric blunt renal trauma

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "This is a systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library."
Reasoning: The authors state that they conducted a systematic review, but they do not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "A search of all original research studies was conducted using PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library."
Reasoning: The authors mention the databases they used for the literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Three hundred eight titles and abstracts were screened to identify scientific articles reporting original research findings. A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies screened and included, but they do not provide a list of these studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included in the review, but they do not provide details about the characteristics of these studies.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Management of pediatric blunt renal trauma: A systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "BACKGROUND: Blunt trauma remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population" [...] "CONCLUSION: The literature supports application of conservative management protocols to high-grade blunt pediatric renal trauma."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Blunt trauma remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population" [...] "This study aimed to review current practices in pediatric blunt renal trauma management."
Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "This study aimed to review current practices in pediatric blunt renal trauma management and to highlight current practices in conservative protocols, success rates of conservative management strategies, as well as short- and long-term outcomes of blunt renal trauma management."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Inclusion criteria were (1) original research articles regarding management of pediatric blunt renal trauma, (2) involvement of cases of high-grade renal (Grades IV and V) trauma, and (3) more than one patient presented per study. Literature reviews and meta-analyses were excluded as well as all articles not written in English or written before the year 2000."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "A search of all original research studies was conducted using PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "The following search was performed in PubMed: (Renal or Kidney) AND (Pediatric or Children) AND Trauma AND Management. Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000."
Reasoning: The authors present the electronic search strategy for one database.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Abstracts were reviewed, and those that met the selection criteria specified later were imported into Endnote, a bibliographic management program. If the full abstract was unavailable or it remained ambiguous whether the article complied with the selection criteria, the full article was obtained and reviewed for inclusion."
Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (Fig. 1)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "Three hundred eight titles and abstracts were screened to identify scientific articles reporting original research findings. A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened and included in the review, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "A total of 32 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the review."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included in the review, but they do not present characteristics for each study or provide the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "The literature supports application of conservative management protocols to high-grade blunt pediatric renal trauma."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "The primary limitation to the analysis is the small size and the retrospective nature of the available literature."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Further studies including prospective, randomized studies and cost-benefit analyses are essential to develop a comprehensive, standardized approach to the management of pediatric renal trauma, which will improve outcomes and maximize resource use."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

115. Liang 2011: Lymphatic Sparing Versus Lymphatic Non-Sparing Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature to compare LSV and LNSV in the management of varicocele in children and adolescents."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the purpose of the study but did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The citations and/ or abstracts or the full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by 3 reviewers (LZL, GJ and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that three reviewers independently evaluated and selected the studies, indicating a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A search was made for all studies published up until 31 August 2010 using the terms “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “adolescent” and “children” in the Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors described a comprehensive literature search in multiple databases using specific keywords.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "This review was limited to published studies and no contact was made with authors to obtain unpublished data."
- Reasoning: The authors explicitly stated that they only included published studies, indicating that grey literature was not considered.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "After screening all titles and abstracts, the number of studies was reduced to 17 by limiting the inclusion criteria to “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “children” and “adolescent”."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number of studies screened and included, but did not provide a list of these studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A summary of the studies’ methodology, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes is provided in Table 1–3, including 489 cases of LSV and 307 cases of LNSV."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a summary of the characteristics of the included studies in tables.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by 3 reviewers (LZL, GJ and TQS), who independently assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies. A critical review checklist of the Dutch Cochrane Center was used to appraise the RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that they assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a critical review checklist.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In this meta-analysis, we demonstrate that the lymphatic sparing laparoscopic approach is associated with a lower incidence of hydrocele formation, supporting the belief that lymphatic occlusion is the main cause of hydrocele formation after varicocelectomy."
- Reasoning: The authors used the results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality in the analysis and the conclusions of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "ORs were used for the analysis of dichotomous variables. The CI was established at 95 %. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "We analyzed possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using funnel plots.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest: None"
- Reasoning: The authors included a statement about conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Lymphatic Sparing Versus Lymphatic Non-Sparing Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the true efficacy and potential advantages of lymphatic sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LSV) over lymphatic non-sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LNSV) in children and adolescents. Methods: A search was made for studies published up until 31 August 2010 using the terms “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “adolescent” and “children” in the Medline, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational clinical studies (OCSs) comparing LSV and LNSV were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables. Results: Out of 127 studies, 2 RCTs and 4 OCSs were eligible for inclusion, comprising 489 cases of LSV and 307 cases of LNSV. The hydrocele rates after LSV were significantly lower than after LNSV (OR = 0.19; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.36; p < 0.00001). However, no significant difference was observed between LSV and LNSV with regard to recurrence (OR = 0.65; 95 % CI = 0.32 – 1.33; p = 0.24) or catch-up growth (OR = 2.14; 95 % CI = 0.97–4.72; p = 0.06). Conclusion: LSV is valuable in reducing the incidence of postoperative hydrocele, with similar recurrence and catch-up growth rates as LNSV. A series of RCTs are warranted to explore the efficacy of LSV in the management of varicocele in children and adolescents."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Varicocele, an abnormal tortuosity and dilatation of the testicular vein within the spermatic cord, first develops in childhood or early adolescence [1]. The prevalence of varicocele in adolescent boys is estimated to be 11 – 15 % [1]. It has been established that adolescent varicocele is associated with growth retardation of the ipsilateral testicle and impaired testicular function, which is correlated to the duration of the varicocele [1]."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about varicocele in adolescent boys.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature to compare LSV and LNSV in the management of varicocele in children and adolescents."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the research question being addressed, including the participants (children and adolescents with varicocele), interventions (LSV and LNSV), comparisons (between LSV and LNSV), and study design (systematic review and meta-analysis).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included all available studies comparing LSV with LNSV for varicocele repair in children and adolescents. Publications with evidence of possible overlap (e. g., same authors, institutions, period of study) of patients with other studies were discussed by LZL, GJ and TQS, and only the most recent or the most complete study was used."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A search was made for all studies published up until 31 August 2010 using the terms “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “adolescent” and “children” in the Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "A search was made for all studies published up until 31 August 2010 using the terms “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “adolescent” and “children” in the Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the search strategy used for multiple databases, including the search terms and the date range.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The citations and/ or abstracts or the full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by 3 reviewers (LZL, GJ and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "3 reviewers (LZL, GJ and TQS) independently assessed the selected studies, and extracted and tabulated data from each article using a predefined data extraction form."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data for the following factors were considered: first author, publication date, study methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, definition of complications, and outcome measures."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by 3 reviewers (LZL, GJ and TQS), who independently assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies. A critical review checklist of the Dutch Cochrane Center was used to appraise the RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "ORs were used for the analysis of dichotomous variables. The CI was established at 95 %. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager 4.2.10 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. If the I2 value was less than 30 %, a fixed effects meta-analysis was applied; if the I2 value was 30 % or more, the random effects meta-analysis was used."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "We analyzed possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The authors specified an assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "127 studies were initially found reporting on the use of varicocelectomy in the management of varicocele in children and adolescents, using the keywords “varicocelectomy”, “children” and “adolescent”. 103 were published as complete manuscripts and 24 as abstracts. After screening all titles and abstracts, the number of studies was reduced to 17 by limiting the inclusion criteria to “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “children” and “adolescent”. After an independent review, 7 publications which compared LSV and LNSV for the treatment of pediatric varicocele were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A summary of the studies’ methodology, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes is provided in Table 1–3, including 489 cases of LSV and 307 cases of LNSV."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Out of 127 studies, 2 RCTs and 4 OCSs were eligible for inclusion, comprising 489 cases of LSV and 307 cases of LNSV. The hydrocele rates after LSV were significantly lower than after LNSV (OR = 0.19; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.36; p < 0.00001). However, no significant difference was observed between LSV and LNSV with regard to recurrence (OR = 0.65; 95 % CI = 0.32 – 1.33; p = 0.24) or catch-up growth (OR = 2.14; 95 % CI = 0.97–4.72; p = 0.06)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals for all outcomes considered.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "As shown in Fig. 2, the hydrocele formation rate after LSV was significantly lower than after LNSV (OR = 0.19; 95 % CI = 0.10 – 0.36; p < 0.00001), without significant statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "We analyzed possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not provided.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In this meta-analysis, we demonstrate that the lymphatic sparing laparoscopic approach is associated with a lower incidence of hydrocele formation, supporting the belief that lymphatic occlusion is the main cause of hydrocele formation after varicocelectomy."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Due to a potential publishing bias, a series of RCTs are still necessary to explore the efficacy of LSV in the management of varicocele in children and adolescents."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations at the review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "LSV is valuable in reducing the incidence of postoperative hydrocele, with similar recurrence and catch-up growth rates as LNSV. A series of RCTs are warranted to explore the efficacy of LSV in the management of varicocele in children and adolescents."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30200284, No. 30600278, No. 30772359, No. 81071997, No. 81072073), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in the University of China (NCET-06-0641), the Scientific Research Foundation for Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry (2008-889), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2010JC025)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

116. Lishuang 2015: Laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken with a prospective protocol according to the latest guidelines of meta-analysis (PRISMA) [14]."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a prospective protocol, indicating an 'a priori' design.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two investigators independently assessed selected studies and extracted the following information: study characteristics, quality, outcomes data, etc."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two investigators independently assessed the studies and extracted data.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic search of the online databases, including Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar Embase, Cohrane library, for studies published between 1995 and 2014 with no limits for publication language, place of study origin and sample size of the studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No specific mention of grey literature.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as part of their inclusion criteria.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No specific mention of a list of included and excluded studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The characteristics of these 11 studies are listed in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), designed specially for observational studies, was adopted to assess the quality of selected studies [15]."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Although we lack of sufficient randomized controlled trials, the present meta-analysis study remains the best evidence on outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study and consider the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool the ORs and MDs for the outcomes of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing publication bias.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest None declared."
- Reasoning: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Reasoning: The abstract provides all the necessary information as per the PRISMA guidelines.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Biliary atresia (BA) is one of the most common reasons for portoenterostomy in pediatric surgery" [...] "Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the currently available data comparing laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) versus open portoenterostomy (OPE) for the treatment of biliary atresia (BA)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to include all publicly available data for comparing the safety and validity of laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) and open portoenterostomy (OPE) in the treatment of biliary atresia."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, addressing participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No specific mention of a review protocol or registration.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "For inclusion in this meta-analysis, the studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) be a cohort study comparing laparoscopic technique and open technique in BA patients undergoing portoenterostomy; (2) include at least one interest datum for analysis—hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, complications, early clearance of jaundice, the rate of long-term survival with native liver; (3) clearly document technique as ‘‘laparoscopic’’ or ‘‘open’’; (4) clearly document indications for portoenterostomy with biliary atresia; (5) be published as a full paper in a journal, not as meeting abstract or review."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic search of the online databases, including Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar Embase, Cohrane library, for studies published between 1995 and 2014 with no limits for publication language, place of study origin and sample size of the studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The following Medical Subject Headings were used: ‘‘comparative study,’’ ‘‘laparoscopy,’’ ‘‘biliary atresia,’’ ‘‘surgery,’’ and ‘‘treatment outcome’’. The following words were searched as text: ‘‘laparoscopic portoenterostomy’’, ‘‘open portoenterostomy’’, and ‘‘biliary atresia’’. Boolean operators (AND, OR = NOT) were additionally used to broaden or narrow the results of potentially usable studies."
- Reasoning: The authors present their electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Before reviewing specific articles we defined criteria for the included studies. For inclusion in this meta-analysis, the studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) be a cohort study comparing laparoscopic technique and open technique in BA patients undergoing portoenterostomy; (2) include at least one interest datum for analysis—hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, complications, early clearance of jaundice, the rate of long-term survival with native liver; (3) clearly document technique as ‘‘laparoscopic’’ or ‘‘open’’; (4) clearly document indications for portoenterostomy with biliary atresia; (5) be published as a full paper in a journal, not as meeting abstract or review."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two independent authors (QG and ZZ) using a predefined meta-analysis form extracted relevant data from each study which resulted in high and satisfactory interobserver agreement."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following data were the outcomes of interest that extracted from each included study: first author, publication year, country, study design, number of patients who underwent LPE or OPE, characteristics of the study population, and end point data (operative times, hospital stay times, rate of conversion from LPE to OPE, re-operation rates, and complications about surgery including: intraoperative blood loss, early clearance of jaundice, cholangitis and variceal bleeding."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), designed specially for observational studies, was adopted to assess the quality of selected studies [15]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "For categorical variables data, statistical analysis was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the statistic summary. Statistical analysis for continuous variables was performed using the mean difference (MD) and as the summary statistic."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool the ORs and MDs for the outcomes of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "We performed leave-one-out sensitivity analysis by excluding a study at a time and recalculating MDs (95 % CI) or ORs (95 % CI)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of additional analyses performed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The process of study screening is showed in Fig. 1, through which, eleven studies assessing LPE versus OPE were considered suitable for meta-analysis, including two prospective [21, 22] and nine retrospective [13, 23–30] studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flow diagram and give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The characteristics of these 11 studies are listed in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of each study in a table.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of included studies and is demonstrated in Table 3."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: The authors present results of individual studies in multiple tables and figures throughout the text.
- Reasoning: The authors present simple summary data and effect estimates for each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: The authors present results of each meta-analysis done in multiple tables and figures throughout the text.
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No specific mention of presenting results of risk of bias across studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "We performed leave-one-out sensitivity analysis by excluding a study at a time and recalculating MDs (95 % CI) or ORs (95 % CI)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Based on the evidence, we make cautious conclusions that laparoscopic portoenterostomy could not replace open portoenterostomy and open Kasai operation remains the ‘gold standard’ for the treatment of biliary atresia."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "There are limitations to this review which must be considered. First, there have only been a small number of studies comparing LPE with OPE in the treatment of biliary atresia, with a lack of randomized trials. Second, the sample size of some selected studies is small so that the statistical power to detect the difference in the outcomes is limited."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Further improvements in the laparoscopic portoenterostomy are needed before its widespread application can be recommended."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No specific mention of funding sources.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

117. Livingston 2015: Fundoplication and gastrostomy versus percutaneous gastrojejunostomy for gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

31 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Outcomes deemed critical a priori were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and pneumonia. During the course of our review, we decided to add major complications as a critical outcome."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a priori outcomes.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Title and abstract screening was completed independently and in duplicate by two of the authors (MHL, ACS)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention independent and duplicate screening of titles and abstracts.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of participants with gastroesophageal reflux treated with FG or GJ."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "We also performed manual searches of relevant journals, conference proceedings [13], theses and dissertations [14–16], and other trial registries [17–20]."
- Reasoning: The authors mention searching grey literature sources.
- Answer: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "An overview of the search strategy and results is depicted in Fig. 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flow diagram of the study selection process, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The three included studies reported on children and adolescents with gastroesophageal reflux and various forms of neurologic impairment."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a description of the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Risk of bias for individual studies was assessed in duplicate using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the use of a tool to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The quality of evidence supporting the use of FG versus GJ for refractory gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment is very low."
- Reasoning: The authors consider the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Outcome data were pooled using Review Manager Version 5.2 [21]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the use of a statistical tool to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Given the low number of studies meeting our inclusion criteria, we decided not to produce a funnel plot for any of the pooled outcomes [22]."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they did not assess publication bias due to the low number of included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Dr. Michael Livingston is supported by the Clinician Investigator Program at McMaster University, which is funded through the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Dr. Peter Rosenbaum is a Canada Research Chair in Childhood Disability Research, Mentoring, and Dissemination."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Fundoplication and gastrostomy versus percutaneous gastrojejunostomy for gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Background: Children with neurologic impairment often fail medical management of gastroesophageal reflux and proceed to fundoplication and gastrostomy (FG) or percutaneous gastrojejunostomy (GJ). Current guidelines do not recommend one treatment over the other, and there is ongoing uncertainty regarding clinical management. Methods: We conducted a structured search of Medline, Embase, trial registries, and the gray literature. We included studies that compared outcomes for FG and GJ in children with neurologic impairment. Results: We identified 556 children from three retrospective studies who underwent FG (n = 431) or GJ (n = 125). There were no differences in rates of pneumonia (17% vs 19%, p = 0.74) or mortality (13% vs 14%, p = 0.76). Few deaths were due to procedural complications (1%) or reflux (2%). There was a trend towards more major complications with FG (29%) compared to GJ (12%) (risk ratio = 1.70, 0.85–3.41, p = 0.14). Minor complications were more common with GJ (70%) than FG (45%), but this difference was also not statistically significant (risk ratio = 0.38, 0.05–3.07, p = 0.36). No studies reported quality of life using validated measures. Conclusions: The quality of the evidence for outcomes of FG versus GJ is very low. Large comparative studies are needed to determine which approach is associated with the best quality-of-life outcomes."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Children with neurologic impairment often fail medical management of gastroesophageal reflux [1–4]. Even with maximal therapy, many patients continue to experience symptoms and complications."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In light of these uncertainties, we conducted a systematic review to determine if FG and GJ are equally effective for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux refractory to maximal medical management in children with neurologic impairment."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies were included if participants were less than 18 years of age, had neurologic impairments, and a clinical history or investigation suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux. Interventions had to be first-time FG and GJ."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of participants with gastroesophageal reflux treated with FG or GJ."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a full electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Title and abstract screening was completed independently and in duplicate by two of the authors (MHL, ACS). Disagreements resulted in automatic inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "We included all patient-important outcomes in our analysis. Outcomes deemed critical a priori were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and pneumonia."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Risk of bias for individual studies was assessed in duplicate using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Summary statistics were reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "All data were pooled using a random effects model. This decision was made a priori because we anticipated moderate heterogeneity across studies due to variation in participants and interventions."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Given the low number of studies meeting our inclusion criteria, we decided not to produce a funnel plot for any of the pooled outcomes [22]."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they did not assess publication bias due to the low number of included studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "An overview of the search strategy and results is depicted in Fig. 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flow diagram of the study selection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The three included studies reported on children and adolescents with gastroesophageal reflux and various forms of neurologic impairment."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "None of the studies reached the gold standard cut-off on MINORS of 19.8 out of 24 (Table 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "All three studies reported all-cause mortality following FG (13%) and GJ (14%). There were no differences between groups in the pooled estimate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.47–1.74, p = 0.76) (Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "The pooled estimate did not demonstrate a significant overall effect (risk ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.69–1.60, p = 0.80) or a significant difference between subgroups (p = 0.63) (Fig. 3). Heterogeneity was low with an I2 of 0%."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The evidence supporting the use of FG versus GJ for refractory gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment is very low."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Studies reported to date have been complicated by baseline differences between treatment groups and imprecision due to small numbers."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In light of these uncertainties, we conducted a systematic review to determine if FG and GJ are equally effective for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux refractory to maximal medical management in children with neurologic impairment."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Dr. Michael Livingston is supported by the Clinician Investigator Program at McMaster University, which is funded through the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Dr. Peter Rosenbaum is a Canada Research Chair in Childhood Disability Research, Mentoring, and Dissemination."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

118. Mauritz 2013: Complete Versus Partial Fundoplication in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement."
- Reasoning: The authors state that they followed the PRISMA guidelines, which implies an a priori design.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility by two authors (F.M. and B.B.) according to the PRISMA statement."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of the articles.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Using predefined search terms PubMed (1960 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011), and the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2011) were systematically searched until March 16, 2011 to identify all articles comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No specific mention of grey literature in the search strategy.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including unpublished studies.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No specific list of included and excluded studies is provided in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Included studies were published between 1994 and 2011 and reported on a total of 1 183 (588 complete and 595 partial fundoplications) children."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The overall methodological quality of included studies was generally poor."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the methodological quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "However, because of the lack of a well-designed study, we have to be cautious in making definitive conclusions."
- Reasoning: The authors consider the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "If more than two studies reported on one of the outcomes of interest, studies were pooled in a meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors describe an appropriate method for combining the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "To identify possible selection bias funnel plots were constructed."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing publication bias using funnel plots.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "F.A. Mauritz is supported by a Wilhelmina Children's Hospital grant. Authors F.A. Mauritz, B.A. Blomberg, R.K. Stellato, D.C. van der Zee, P.D. Siersema and M.Y.A. van Herwaarden-Lindeboom have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Complete Versus Partial Fundoplication in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Reasoning: The abstract is structured and includes all necessary components.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Complete fundoplication (Nissen) has long been accepted as the gold standard surgical procedure in children with therapy-resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, increasingly more evidence has become available for partial fundoplication as an alternative."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complete versus partial fundoplication in children with therapy-resistant GERD."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question, including participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No specific mention of a review protocol or registration.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility using the following predefined criteria: Study population: neurologically normal (NN) and impaired (NI) infants and children (0–18 years) undergoing primary antireflux surgery for GERD, irrespective of prior or concomitant gastrostomy placement."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Using predefined search terms PubMed (1960 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011), and the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2011) were systematically searched until March 16, 2011 to identify all articles comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "For PubMed, the following search terms were used: (child*[Title/Abstract] OR infant*[Title/Abstract] OR adolescent*[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR paediatric*[Title/Abstract]) AND (nissen[Title/Abstract] OR toupet[Title/Abstract] OR thal[Title/Abstract] OR anti-reflux*[Title/Abstract] OR antireflux*[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[Title/Abstract] OR fundoplication[MeSH Terms]) AND gastroesophageal reflux[MeSH Terms]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a detailed search strategy for one database.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Titles and abstracts of all retrieved records, and subsequently full-text articles (full-texts were obtained for articles that appeared potentially relevant), were examined independently by two authors (F.M. and B.B.) according to the PRISMA statement."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The following data were extracted separately by the same two authors for all studies meeting the inclusion criteria: study population characteristics, study design, surgical method, duration of follow-up, number of participating subjects and events for each of the study outcomes of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Primary outcomes of interest were descriptive symptoms or standardized questionnaires on GERD, 24-h (with or without multichannel intraluminal impedance) pH monitoring, postoperative dysphagia and dilatations for dysphagia."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Using predefined criteria, two authors (F.M. and B.B) included studies and assessed their methodological quality and risk of bias according to the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Results were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis model. The random-effects model was chosen to take into account suspected heterogeneity caused by differences in study design and patient population, as it generates a more conservative estimate than an analysis using the fixed-effects model."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for synthesizing the results and combining the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "To identify possible selection bias funnel plots were constructed."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "In order to evaluate whether an anterior Thal or posterior Toupet fundoplication had different outcomes when compared to the posterior, complete Nissen fundoplication, subgroup analysis was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of additional analyses, including subgroup analyses.
- Answer: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "In total, 939 potentially relevant publications were identified. After title/abstract and full-text screening we selected eight original studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Included studies were published between 1994 and 2011 and reported on a total of 1 183 (588 complete and 595 partial fundoplications) children."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The overall methodological quality of included studies was generally poor."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis could be performed on all primary outcomes, except for 24-h pH monitoring. None of the studies used standardized reflux questionnaires. Only the absence or presence of reflux symptoms was reported."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies for all outcomes considered.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Our systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies found similar short- and long-term reflux controls after both complete and partial fundoplication, whereas partial fundoplication required significantly fewer dilatations to treat severe postoperative dysphagia than did complete fundoplication."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "To identify possible selection bias funnel plots were constructed."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "In order to evaluate whether an anterior Thal or posterior Toupet fundoplication had different outcomes when compared to the posterior, complete Nissen fundoplication, subgroup analysis was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of additional analyses, including subgroup analyses.
- Answer: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that reflux control is similar after both complete and partial fundoplication, while partial fundoplication significantly reduces the number of dilatations to treat severe dysphagia."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Firstly, the majority of the included studies in this review were retrospective in design, which resulted in limited access to study outcomes and various forms of bias."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study and the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "To decide which type of fundoplication is the best practice in pediatric GERD patients, more randomized controlled trials comparing complete to partial fundoplication in children with GERD are warranted."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "F.A. Mauritz is supported by a Wilhelmina Children's Hospital grant."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the source of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

119. Mauritz 2011: The Effects and Efficacy of Antireflux Surgery in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 1 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This study aims to systematically review the efficacy of pediatric ARS and its effects on gastroesophageal function, as measured by gastroesophageal function tests."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research question and objectives.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility."
- Reasoning: The authors mention independent assessment of articles, but do not specify if this applies to both study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for prospective studies reporting on ARS in children with GERD."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their search strategy and databases used.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "In total, 17 eligible studies were identified, reporting on a total of 1,280 children."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of included studies, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Included trials were published between 1995 and 2010 and reported on a total of 1,280 children."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "However, the overall methodological quality was generally poor."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The strength of these conclusions is, however, bound by the lack of high-quality prospective studies on pediatric ARS."
- Reasoning: The authors consider the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention methods for combining study findings.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "The Effects and Efficacy of Antireflux Surgery in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Background Antireflux surgery (ARS) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequently performed major operations in children. Many studies have described the results of ARS in children, however, with a wide difference in outcome. This study aims to systematically review the efficacy of pediatric ARS and its effects on gastroesophageal function, as measured by gastroesophageal function tests. This is the first systematic review comprising only prospective, longitudinal studies, minimizing the risk of bias."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, affecting 7–20% of the pediatric population. Most symptomatic children respond well to medical treatment. However, when medical treatment fails and reflux symptoms persist, antireflux surgery (ARS) may be considered."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence on the efficacy of pediatric ARS, this article aims to systematically review all prospective, longitudinal studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, this review aims to study the effects of ARS on GE function in children, as measured by pre- and postoperative assessment tests."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility using the following criteria: study population—infants and children (0–18 years), who underwent ARS; type of intervention—open or laparoscopic Nissen, Thal, or Toupet fundoplication; study design—only prospective study format; study results—operative results reported using symptom questionnaires, or clearly defined reflux symptoms, or GE function tests, both before and after ARS."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Using predefined search terms, PubMed (from 1960), Embase (from 1980), and the Cochrane library (issue 11, 2010) were systematically searched for all articles published until November 10, 2010."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "For PubMed, the following search terms were used: (fundoplication[Title/Abstract] OR nissen[Title/Abstract] OR thal[Title/Abstract] OR toupet[Title/Abstract] OR boerema[Title/Abstract] OR antireflux surgery[Title/Abstract]) AND (child[Title/Abstract] OR children[Title/Abstract] OR infant[Title/Abstract] OR infants[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric[Title/Abstract] OR pediatrics[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric[Title/Abstract] OR pediatrics[Title/Abstract]). The same search strategy was used in EMBASE (replacing “[TIAB]” by “:ti,ab”). In addition, the Cochrane library was manually searched."
- Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy for multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Each article was independently assessed for eligibility. References in these selected articles were also screened for cross-reference."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The titles and abstracts of all identified studies were reviewed by two independent authors (WS, MH) according to the MOOSE criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following data were extracted from each selected article: Study design, study population, surgical method, outcome assessment techniques, duration of follow-up, and study outcomes of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "However, the overall methodological quality was generally poor."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the included studies, but do not describe the methods used.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "In this systematic review, success of pediatric ARS will be defined as complete relief of reflux symptoms."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measure.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for combining results of studies.
- Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "In total, 1,260 articles were identified and screened. Of these, 17 original prospective studies that met our criteria were selected for inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Included trials were published between 1995 and 2010 and reported on a total of 1,280 children."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "In 10 out of 17 (59%) studies (Table 3), the success rate of antireflux surgery in eliminating reflux symptoms was reported."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each study, but do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, ARS in children shows a good overall success rate (median 86%) in terms of complete relief of symptoms."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The strength of these conclusions is, however, bound by the lack of high-quality prospective studies on pediatric ARS."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Therefore, future studies should be performed in a well-designed prospective format, either as an RCT comparing different types of ARS, or as a prospective, age- and sex-matched study comparing different patient groups."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention sources of funding for the review.
- Response: [No]

120. Mei 2011: Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The current study was undertaken from March 3, 2010, to October."
- Reasoning: The study mentions a specific time frame for the study, but does not provide a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The citations, abstracts, and full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by two reviewers (MH and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The study mentions that two reviewers independently evaluated and selected the studies, indicating a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched online databases, including Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane, to identify suitable studies until the end of October 2010, without lower date limit."
- Reasoning: The study mentions multiple databases that were searched, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "The review was limited to the published studies, and no attempt was made to contact the authors to obtain unpublished data or unclear information in the studies."
- Reasoning: The study explicitly states that it was limited to published studies, indicating that grey literature was not included.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Finally, nine full articles were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the analysis, including one RCT, two prospective comparative studies, and six retrospective observational studies."
- Reasoning: The study mentions the number and types of studies included, but does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A summary of the studies’ methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, measured outcomes, and the use of stents and drainage is provided in Tables 1 to 4."
- Reasoning: The study mentions that the characteristics of the included studies are provided in tables.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by two reviewers (MH and TQS), who assessed the methodologic quality of selected studies independently."
- Reasoning: The study mentions that the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "With this systematic review and meta-analysis of articles from the medical literature, we approve that LP is a safe and effective procedure for the management of UPJ obstruction in the pediatric population."
- Reasoning: The study's conclusions are based on the results of the included studies, indicating that the scientific quality of the studies was considered.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analyses were performed for the five primary outcome parameters: Operative time (in minutes), postoperative complications (in events per group), duration of hospital stay (in days), success rate (in events per group), and stenting rate (in events per group)."
- Reasoning: The study mentions that meta-analyses were performed for multiple outcome parameters, indicating appropriate methods to combine the findings of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The study mentions that publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30200284, No. 30600278, No. 30772359, No. 81071997, No. 81072073), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-06-0641), Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (2008-889), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2010JC025)."
- Reasoning: The study mentions the sources of funding, indicating a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: To comprehensively review the available evidences in the literature on the use of laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) vs open pyeloplasty (OP) for the repair of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction in children. Materials and Methods: Published studies until the end of October 2010 were searched from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane databases. The literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by using Review Manager 4.2.8 software. Results: Of 1403 studies, one randomized controlled trial (RCT), two prospective comparative studies, and six retrospective observational studies were eligible for inclusion criteria, comprising 694 cases of LP and 7334 cases of OP. The OP has significantly reduced operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 59.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 41.15 to 76.85; P < 0.00001) and higher stent placement rate (odds ratio [OR] = 5.97; 95% CI = 3.17 to 11.26; P < 0.00001) compared with LP, whereas the duration of hospital stay was shorter in the LP group (WMD = - 0.40; 95% CI = - 0.77 to - 0.03; P = 0.03). No difference was observed between LP and OP regarding complications (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.34; P = 0.37) or success rate (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 0.71 to 4.36; P = 0.22). Conclusions: LP is a minimally invasive, safe, and effective therapy method for UPJ obstruction in children, with shorter hospital stay and excellent outcomes, and without additional risk of postoperative complications. Because of the publishing bias, a series of RCTs are necessary to explore the efficiencies of LP in the management of UPJ obstruction in children."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Open pyeloplasty (OP), originally described by Anderson and Hynes, has been the gold standard for surgical management of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. Success rates of this technique were reported to exceed 90% in long-term studies. Various minimally invasive modalities, however, such as Acucise catheter incision, balloon dilation, endopyelotomy techniques, and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP), have been introduced into clinical practice in recent decades."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed the present meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and potential advantages of LP in relation to conventional OP in the treatment of children with UPJ obstructions."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the research question, including the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included all available studies that compared LP with OP for the repair of UPJ obstructions in the pediatric population and with quantitative data on outcome parameters. The pediatric population was defined as age younger than 18 years when the patient underwent LP or OP."
- Reasoning: The study specifies the eligibility criteria for the included studies, including the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched online databases, including Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane, to identify suitable studies until the end of October 2010, without lower date limit."
- Reasoning: The study describes the information sources and the date of the last search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The ‘‘pyeloplasty,’’ ‘‘laparoscopy,’’ ‘‘laparoscopic pyeloplasty,’’ and ‘‘ureteropelvic junction obstruction’’ were used as search terms."
- Reasoning: The study presents the search terms used, but does not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The citations, abstracts, and full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by two reviewers (MH and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The study describes the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two reviewers (MH and TQS) independently assessed selected studies, and extracted and tabulated data from each article with a predefined data extraction form."
- Reasoning: The study describes the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data regarding the following factors were considered: Study methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, definition of complications, and outcome measures."
- Reasoning: The study lists and defines the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by two reviewers (MH and TQS), who assessed the methodologic quality of selected studies independently."
- Reasoning: The study describes the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The Review Manager 4.2.8 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables."
- Reasoning: The study states the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Meta-analyses were performed for the five primary outcome parameters: Operative time (in minutes), postoperative complications (in events per group), duration of hospital stay (in days), success rate (in events per group), and stenting rate (in events per group)."
- Reasoning: The study describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The study specifies an assessment of publication bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial search strategy retrieved 1403 publications from all above databases using the key words ‘‘pyeloplasty’’ and ‘‘ureteropelvic junction obstructions.’’ After screening all titles and abstracts, the number of studies was reduced to 48 by limiting the inclusion criteria as comparative studies regarding LP and OP. After independent review, eight articles were excluded because of unavailability of the surgical data in LP or OP groups, and nine were excluded because they were review articles and did not allow the calculation of outcome parameters. Eleven articles were excluded because they did not provide sufficient data to perform a quantitative analysis, and four were excluded because the same authors published several reports on the same patients, and only the best-quality study was considered. Finally, nine full articles were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the analysis, including one RCT, two prospective comparative studies, and six retrospective observational studies."
- Reasoning: The study provides the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A summary of the studies’ methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, measured outcomes, and the use of stents and drainage is provided in Tables 1 to 4."
- Reasoning: The study presents the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Meta-analyses were performed for the five primary outcome parameters: Operative time (in minutes), postoperative complications (in events per group), duration of hospital stay (in days), success rate (in events per group), and stenting rate (in events per group)."
- Reasoning: The study presents summary data and effect estimates for each outcome, but does not provide this information for each individual study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Analysis of the pooled data revealed that the success rates were not significantly different in the OP group compared with the LP group (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 0.71 to 4.36; P = 0.22)."
- Reasoning: The study presents the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "We analyzed the possible publication bias by generating funnel plots of the trials used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes. No clear bias was apparent."
- Reasoning: The study presents the results of an assessment of publication bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The full text does not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "With this systematic review and meta-analysis of articles from the medical literature, we approve that LP is a safe and effective procedure for the management of UPJ obstruction in the pediatric population. The shorter hospital stay, excellent outcomes, and without significant additional risk of postoperative complications of the laparoscopic procedure indicates potential benefits over traditional open procedures."
- Reasoning: The study summarizes the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Because of publishing bias, however, a series of RCTs are necessary to explore the efficiencies of LP in the management of pediatric UPJ obstruction."
- Reasoning: The study discusses the limitations at the review level, including the risk of publishing bias.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In current clinical practice, LP can be used as an alternative to open surgery according to the surgeon’s discretion and laparoscopic experience. Because of publishing bias, however, a series of RCTs are necessary to explore the efficiencies of LP in the management of pediatric UPJ obstruction."
- Reasoning: The study provides a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30200284, No. 30600278, No. 30772359, No. 81071997, No. 81072073), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-06-0641), Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (2008-889), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2010JC025)."
- Reasoning: The study describes the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

121. Mullassery 2014: Does Aggressive Surgical Resection Improve Survival in Advanced Stage 3 and 4 Neuroblastoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1


LLM response

30 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 37.2%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently published studies was undertaken to critically examine the evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, but they do not provide any information about a pre-established protocol or research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Studies were reviewed by PJF and DM independently. Where a difference in opinion occurred the matter was resolved by consensus agreement in conjunction with the senior author (PDL)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two people independently reviewed the studies and resolved disagreements through consensus, indicating a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The following databases were included in the search - Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Search terms used were: (Neuroblastoma) AND (Surgery OR (gross AND total AND resection) OR (limited AND resection)). Reference lists of retrieved studies and conference abstracts were also reviewed to identify other potential studies of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases, used specific search terms, and supplemented their search by reviewing reference lists and conference abstracts.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "A flow chart of the study selection process is outlined in Figure 1. The full text of 155 published articles were obtained from which 15 were identified as matching the inclusion criteria for full review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a flow chart of the study selection process and mention the number of articles obtained and included, but they do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All 15 studies included in the analysis were case series [4–7, 14–24, 58]. No randomized controlled trials were published comparing outcomes of GTR and STR in stages 3 and 4 neuroblastoma."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but they do not provide detailed information about the participants, interventions, and outcomes of each study.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Risk of bias in included studies was assessed qualitatively for observational studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, but they do not provide any details about the methods of assessment or the results for each study.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "All the studies included in the meta-analysis, we undertook, were case series."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the type of studies included in their review, but they do not explicitly state how the scientific quality of these studies influenced their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration and PRISMA guidelines [11]. Review Manager (Revman version 5.1.0) was used for the meta analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random effects model, and summary odds ratio for 5-year survival outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods they used to combine the findings of the studies, including the use of a random effects model and the calculation of odds ratios.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Funnel plots for stage 4 neuroblastoma studies showed grouping of studies at the apex of the plot suggesting that larger studies with higher patient numbers are more likely to have been included. The lack of studies gathered at the base of the plot suggests a paucity of publications of smaller sample size. The plot is not symmetrical suggesting that there is most likely to be elements of publication bias here."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using funnel plots.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Declaration of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Does Aggressive Surgical Resection Improve Survival in Advanced Stage 3 and 4 Neuroblastoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The abstract or structured summary is not provided in the provided text.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Neuroblastoma is the most common extracranial solid tumor in childhood [1]. It accounts for 15% of pediatric oncology deaths worldwide [2]. It is a highly malignant tumor comprising undifferentiated and/or differentiating cells originating from neural crest-derived sympatho-adrenal precursors. Neuroblastoma is “enigmatic” because of its broad spectrum of clinical behavior."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review by describing the prevalence and characteristics of neuroblastoma.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently published studies was undertaken to critically examine the evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed, including the participants (children with stages 3 and 4 neuroblastoma), the intervention (GTR), and the outcome (survival).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide any registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies were included if they reported 5-year survival data for children under 18 years of age with stages 3 and/or 4 neuroblastoma following gross total resection and subtotal resection (STR)."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The following databases were included in the search - Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Search terms used were: (Neuroblastoma) AND (Surgery OR (gross AND total AND resection) OR (limited AND resection)). Reference lists of retrieved studies and conference abstracts were also reviewed to identify other potential studies of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search, including databases and search terms, and they mention that they reviewed reference lists and conference abstracts.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Search terms used were: (Neuroblastoma) AND (Surgery OR (gross AND total AND resection) OR (limited AND resection))."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used, but they do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Studies were reviewed by PJF and DM independently. Where a difference in opinion occurred the matter was resolved by consensus agreement in conjunction with the senior author (PDL)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies, including independent review and consensus agreement.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Data were extracted using a custom designed proforma before commencement of the search strategy for first author, publication date, study center institution, time period of study, participant age range, chemotherapy regime, MYCN status, stage, 3 and stage 4 sample size defined by INSS, number of GTR and STR operations performed, 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year disease free survival, and reported surgical complications."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports, including the use of a custom designed proforma and the types of data extracted.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data were extracted using a custom designed proforma before commencement of the search strategy for first author, publication date, study center institution, time period of study, participant age range, chemotherapy regime, MYCN status, stage, 3 and stage 4 sample size defined by INSS, number of GTR and STR operations performed, 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year disease free survival, and reported surgical complications."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Risk of bias in included studies was assessed qualitatively for observational studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies, but they do not specify whether this was done at the study or outcome level or how this information was used in the data synthesis.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random effects model, and summary odds ratio for 5-year survival outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors state that the principal summary measures were odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration and PRISMA guidelines [11]. Review Manager (Revman version 5.1.0) was used for the meta analysis. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random effects model, and summary odds ratio for 5-year survival outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including the use of a random effects model and the calculation of odds ratios.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Funnel plots for stage 4 neuroblastoma studies showed grouping of studies at the apex of the plot suggesting that larger studies with higher patient numbers are more likely to have been included. The lack of studies gathered at the base of the plot suggests a paucity of publications of smaller sample size. The plot is not symmetrical suggesting that there is most likely to be elements of publication bias here."
- Reasoning: The authors specify an assessment of publication bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "Sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting series from each analysis and re-estimating the overall effect."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of sensitivity analysis they used.
- Answer: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A flow chart of the study selection process is outlined in Figure 1. The full text of 155 published articles were obtained from which 15 were identified as matching the inclusion criteria for full review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, and they provide a flow diagram of the study selection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "All 15 studies included in the analysis were case series [4–7, 14–24, 58]. No randomized controlled trials were published comparing outcomes of GTR and STR in stages 3 and 4 neuroblastoma."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies and provide the citations, but they do not provide detailed information for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias of each study or any outcome level assessment.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Five studies recorded 5 years OS outcomes for children with stage 3 neuroblastoma. All these series clearly reported a significant increase in 5 year OS following GTR."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies and provide summary data for each intervention group, but they do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "On meta-analysis, we therefore found that there was a significant increase in OS at 5 years for the GTR group compared to the STR group."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Funnel plots for stage 4 neuroblastoma studies showed grouping of studies at the apex of the plot suggesting that larger studies with higher patient numbers are more likely to have been included. The lack of studies gathered at the base of the plot suggests a paucity of publications of smaller sample size. The plot is not symmetrical suggesting that there is most likely to be elements of publication bias here."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of an assessment of publication bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "Sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting series from each analysis and re-estimating the overall effect."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of a sensitivity analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Based on current “‘best evidence” we can report a clear survival advantage for GTR in stage 3 neuroblastoma. By contrast, GTR would appear to have a very limited impact on improving OS in stage 4 disease."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The authors mention the type of studies included in their review, but they do not explicitly state how the scientific quality of these studies influenced their conclusions."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss some limitations of their review, including the type of studies included and the influence of the scientific quality of these studies on their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "We believe a prospective well-designed randomized trial incorporating patient age, tumor site and elements of tumor biology (MYCN, DNA ploidy status, etc.) is needed to fully address the role of surgery in stage 4 neuroblastoma."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss the implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors wish to thank Dr Kerry Dwain, Consultant Statistician, University of Liverpool for help with statistical advice and proof reading the paper."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the support they received, but they do not describe any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

123. Narayanan 2013: Hepaticoduodenostomy versus hepaticojejunostomy after resection of choledochal cyst: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

23 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "To compare the clinical outcomes of HD and HJ, we performed a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis from indexed published literature."
Reasoning: The authors state that they performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, but they do not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article."
Reasoning: The authors mention that three reviewers independently assessed the studies and extracted data.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier ClinicalKey, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library search was performed on all studies published between 1950 and 2012."
Reasoning: The authors mention multiple databases and a time range for their search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished studies.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "All six included studies are retrospective series. While five studies were published after 2005 one was published in 1981. They included total of 679 patients."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, such as the study design, publication year, and total number of patients.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method and pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods they used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Hepaticoduodenostomy versus hepaticojejunostomy after resection of choledochal cyst: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Background: Excision has been established as a standard management practice for choledochal cysts in the last few decades. The two most commonly performed methods of reconstruction after excision are hepaticoduodenostomy (HD) and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), of which the HJ is favored by most surgeons. Evidence concerning the optimal method of reconstruction is, however, sparse. Materials and Methods: Studies comparing outcomes from HD and HJ after choledochal cyst excision were identified by searching Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier Clinicalkey, Google Scholar and Cochrane library. Suitable studies were chosen and data extracted for meta-analysis. Outcomes evaluated included operative time, hospital stay and incidence of postoperative bile leak, cholangitis, reflux/gastritis, anastomotic stricture, bleeding, intestinal obstruction and re-operative rate. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables; pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables. Results: Six retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising a total of 679 patients, 412 of whom (60.7%) underwent HD, and the remainder, 267(39.3%) underwent HJ. Although, HD group had slightly shorter hospital stay (MD: 0.30; 95% CI: −0.22–0.39; P b 0.00001) it showed a higher incidence of postoperative reflux/gastritis (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: − 0.02–0.39; P = 0.002). However, the other outcomes such as bile leak, cholangitis, anastomotic stricture, bleeding, operative time, reoperation rate and adhesive intestinal obstruction did not differ between HD and HJ groups. Conclusions: HD shows higher postoperative reflux/gastritis than HJ but a shorter hospital stay. There are few good-quality studies that compare the outcomes from HD and HJ, meaning that caution should be exercised in the generalization of the results of this meta-analysis, which suggests HD to be comparable with HJ in terms of other complications, operative benefits and outcomes."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Choledochal cysts are congenital bile duct anomalies with cystic dilatation of the biliary tree and have potential for various complications. Most of the reported cases in the world come from Asia but it is not uncommon in the western world. Complete resection of the extra hepatic bile duct is the accepted management of choledochal cyst [1]. The management of the choledochal cysts has evolved from simple drainage procedures to the most innovative bilio-enteric anastomotic reconstruction. Biliary reconstruction is now commonly performed by one of several techniques, including Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), hepaticoduodenostomy (HD), and jejunal interposition hepaticoduodenostomy [2] and [3]. Debate continues regarding the optimal method of biliary reconstruction."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "To compare the clinical outcomes of HD and HJ, we performed a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis from indexed published literature."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "To enter the analysis, studies had to (1) report the reconstructive techniques after excision of choledochal cyst; (2) have comparative data for HD and HJ operations available; (3) report on at least one of the outcome measures mentioned below; and (4) have been published as a full paper in a journal, not as meeting abstract or review."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier ClinicalKey, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library search was performed on all studies published between 1950 and 2012. The latest search was performed in December 2012."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "The following keywords were used: “choledochal cyst”, “choledochal cyst AND hepaticoduodenostomy”, “choledochal cyst AND hepaticojejunostomy”, “hepaticoduodenostomy”, “hepaticojejunostomy”, “hepaticodochoduodenostomy”. The “related articles” function was used to widen the search. The reference lists of the full articles were also manually searched to identify additional eligible studies."
Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy, including the keywords used.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article: first author, year of publication, study design, follow up period, mean age and number of subjects operated on with each technique, and end point data (operative times, length of postoperative hospital stay, re-operation rates and postoperative complications including bile leak, adhesive intestinal obstruction, cholangitis, reflux/gastritis and anastomotic stricture). The reviewers reached consensus at each stage of the screening process."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article: first author, year of publication, study design, follow up period, mean age and number of subjects operated on with each technique, and end point data (operative times, length of postoperative hospital stay, re-operation rates and postoperative complications including bile leak, adhesive intestinal obstruction, cholangitis, reflux/gastritis and anastomotic stricture). The reviewers reached consensus at each stage of the screening process."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Outcomes evaluated included operative time, hospital stay and incidence of postoperative bile leak, cholangitis, reflux/gastritis, anastomotic stricture, bleeding, intestinal obstruction and re-operative rate."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables; pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method and pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "The initial search yielded 14 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Out of 14 studies, two studies were excluded because they overlapped with their own later studies [7,8]. Five studies were excluded as they included comparisons of interposition hepaticoduodenostomy or one of its modifications [2,9–11,12]. One study was excluded as the comparison was unclear [13], leaving 6 studies for meta-analysis [14–18,19]."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "All six included studies are retrospective series. While five studies were published after 2005 one was published in 1981. They included total of 679 patients. Of these, 412 (60.7%) underwent HD, and 267 (39.3%) had HJ."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide the citations.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "Six retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising a total of 679 patients, 412 of whom (60.7%) underwent HD, and the remainder, 267(39.3%) underwent HJ. Although, HD group had slightly shorter hospital stay (MD: 0.30; 95% CI: −0.22–0.39; P b 0.00001) it showed a higher incidence of postoperative reflux/gastritis (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: − 0.02–0.39; P = 0.002). However, the other outcomes such as bile leak, cholangitis, anastomotic stricture, bleeding, operative time, reoperation rate and adhesive intestinal obstruction did not differ between HD and HJ groups."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group, but they do not provide a forest plot.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Although, HD group had slightly shorter hospital stay (MD: 0.30; 95% CI: −0.22–0.39; P b 0.00001) it showed a higher incidence of postoperative reflux/gastritis (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: − 0.02–0.39; P = 0.002). However, the other outcomes such as bile leak, cholangitis, anastomotic stricture, bleeding, operative time, reoperation rate and adhesive intestinal obstruction did not differ between HD and HJ groups."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "Our meta-analysis suggests that the HD is comparable to conventional HJ in most postoperative outcomes except a higher rate of gastric reflux. To our knowledge this study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing HD to HJ."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "There are few limitations in this study. The lack of a randomized trial comparing the two procedures is a key problem. All six included studies are retrospective observational studies which are prone to selection bias and may result in uneven distribution of confounding factors such as age of patient, duration of follow-up and type of choledochal cyst."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Based on the evidence of this study, HD as a method of reconstruction after excision of a choledochal cyst is a suitable alternative to HJ. Though reflux/gastritis is higher in the HD group, it could possibly be avoided with a construction of the HD anastomosis at the junction of the first and second portions of the duodenum after an extensive Kocher maneuver to prevent any tension on the anastomosis."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

124. Nasr 2010: Comparison of the Nuss and the Ravitch procedure for pectus excavatum repair: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 0 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

26 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Our objective was to compare the Nuss procedure to the Ravitch procedure using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and methodology before conducting the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors (AN and PW) independently extracted data from the retrieved articles."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two independent authors extracted the data.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All publications describing both surgical procedures for pectus excavatum were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), EMBASE (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward) and from hand-searching journals and conference proceedings."
- Reasoning: The authors used multiple databases and hand-searching for their literature search.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "No randomized trials were identified. Nine prospective and retrospective studies were identified and were included in this study."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Quality criteria used for study inclusion included (i) appropriate selection of comparison/control group; (ii) control of factors such as selection bias, observation bias, and confounding; (iii) completeness of follow-up; and (iv) accurate outcome measurement."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Our results showed no difference between both techniques with regard to overall complication rates."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "The statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software."
- Reasoning: The authors used appropriate software for their meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they assessed for publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Comparison of the Nuss and the Ravitch procedure for pectus excavatum repair: a meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: Pectus excavatum is the most common chest wall deformity in children. Two procedures are widely applied—the Nuss and the Ravitch. Several comparative studies are published evaluating both procedures with inconsistent results. Our objective was to compare the Nuss procedure to the Ravitch procedure using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Pectus excavatum is the most common congenital chest wall abnormality occurring in 8 per 1000 live births."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for their review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Our objective was to compare both the Nuss and the Ravitch procedure using systematic review and meta-analysis methodology."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their objective.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide any registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "To be selected, a study had to be designed to evaluate the Nuss vs the Ravitch procedure for the treatment of pectus excavatum and provide relevant and interpretable data."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "All publications describing both surgical procedures for pectus excavatum were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), EMBASE (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward) and from hand-searching journals and conference proceedings."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in their search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The terms pectus excavatum, Ravitch, and Nuss were mapped to their MeSH terms and then combined."
- Reasoning: The authors presented their search strategy.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Three authors (AN, AF, and PW) independently assessed all published articles identified as potentially relevant by the literature search for inclusion in the review."
- Reasoning: The authors described their process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two authors (AN and PW) independently extracted data from the retrieved articles."
- Reasoning: The authors described their data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome of this analysis was complication rates. Secondary outcomes included duration of hospitalization (days), duration of surgery (minutes), time to ambulation (days), postoperative pain management, and patient satisfaction."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Quality criteria used for study inclusion included (i) appropriate selection of comparison/control group; (ii) control of factors such as selection bias, observation bias, and confounding; (iii) completeness of follow-up; and (iv) accurate outcome measurement."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software. Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals are presented."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "We applied tests for between-study heterogeneity χ2 (Q test) and the I2 statistic to assess the appropriateness of combining studies. If the results of these tests showed heterogeneity (cutoff of 0.10 or larger for the Q test or N50% heterogeneity with the I2 statistic), a random effect model was used for meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "No randomized trials were identified. Nine prospective and retrospective studies were identified and were included in this study."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the number of studies included in the review, but did not provide the number of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, nor reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "No randomized trials were identified. Nine prospective and retrospective studies were identified and were included in this study."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number and type of studies included, but did not provide detailed characteristics for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Our results showed no difference between both techniques with regard to overall complication rates (OR, 1.75 [0.62-4.95]; P = .30)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented summary data and effect estimates, but did not provide these for each individual study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "The pooled estimates from these studies showed no significant difference in overall complication rates between both techniques (odds ratio [OR], 1.75 [0.62-4.95]; P = .30)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our results suggest no differences between the Nuss procedure vs the Ravitch procedure with respect to overall complications, length of hospital stay, and time to ambulation. However, the rate of reoperation, postoperative hemothorax, and pneumothorax after the Nuss procedure were higher compared to the Ravitch procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized their main findings and discussed their relevance.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was originally designed to compare outcomes of randomized trials. It is possible to perform meta-analysis for observational studies, but the risk of contamination from bias and confounding is increased."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of their study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The results of this meta-analysis fail to provide overwhelming support to either approach, and both approaches are acceptable."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of their results and discussed implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for their systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

125. Nasr 2013: Mechanical Traction Techniques for Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: A Critical Appraisal

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the existing literature on this topic and to compare the Foker technique to the more conventional delayed primary anastomosis."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and inclusion criteria.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Authors extracted data from the retrieved articles."
- Reasoning: The authors mention data extraction but do not specify if it was done by at least two independent researchers.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All publications describing both procedures were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), Embase (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward), and from hand searching journals and conference proceedings."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished studies.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The overall numbers of study subjects managed in these publications were 71 infants, ranging from 1 to 60 newborns with long-gap EA per study."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Our methodological assessment revealed that the studies ranged from poor to moderate quality."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "It is important to point out that the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. All studies published in the literature on this topic are retrospective and noncomparative."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "This analysis demonstrated that restoration of esophageal continuity was achieved faster using the mechanical traction approach."
- Reasoning: The authors combined the findings of the studies, but they do not mention any statistical tests for homogeneity.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of Interest None"
- Reasoning: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Mechanical Traction Techniques for Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: A Critical Appraisal"
- Reasoning: The title does not explicitly identify the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Background Long-gap esophageal atresia (EA) represents a challenging problem for pediatric surgeons, and a large number of techniques and approaches have been proposed. One of the more recent, initially published by Foker, is the use of mechanical traction to accelerate the growth of the esophageal ends and permit earlier primary anastomosis. The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the existing literature on this topic and to compare the Foker technique to the more conventional delayed primary anastomosis."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Esophageal atresia (EA) is a relatively common congenital malformation of unknown etiology with an incidence of 1 in 3,500 live births."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the existing literature on this topic and to compare the Foker technique to the more conventional delayed primary anastomosis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All publications describing both procedures were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "All publications describing both procedures were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onward), Embase (1980 onward), and CINAHL (1982 onward), and from hand searching journals and conference proceedings."
- Reasoning: The authors describe all information sources in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The terms ‘‘EA,’’ ‘‘long gap,’’ ‘‘Foker, ‘‘laparotomy,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopy’’ were mapped to their corresponding MeSH (medical subject headings) terms and then combined."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy but do not specify which database it was used for.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All publications describing both surgical procedures were reviewed. Studies which were designed to describe both procedures were selected for review."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Authors extracted data from the retrieved articles."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process but do not specify if it was done independently or in duplicate.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome of this analysis was reported complication rates. Secondary outcome was an estimate of time to primary anastomosis."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Our methodological assessment revealed that the studies ranged from poor to moderate quality."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The time until an anastomosis could be achieved was reported in all studies with a mean of 14  8.2 days."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "This analysis demonstrated that restoration of esophageal continuity was achieved faster using the mechanical traction approach."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, but they do not mention measures of consistency.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The literature search resulted in a total of 115 articles, after screening and exclusion of nonrelevant and duplicate publications. Six articles met our criteria for inclusion and the full text was examined more in detail."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but they do not provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The overall numbers of study subjects managed in these publications were 71 infants, ranging from 1 to 60 newborns with long-gap EA per study."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics for which data were extracted, but they do not provide the citations for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Our methodological assessment revealed that the studies ranged from poor to moderate quality."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The time until an anastomosis could be achieved was reported in all studies with a mean of 14  8.2 days."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each intervention group, but they do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This analysis demonstrated that restoration of esophageal continuity was achieved faster using the mechanical traction approach."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "It is important to point out that the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. All studies published in the literature on this topic are retrospective and noncomparative."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The results of this review fail to provide overwhelming support to either approach, and based on our analysis both approaches must be deemed to be acceptable."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

126. Nataraja 2013: The Incidence of Intraabdominal Abscess Formation Following Laparoscopic Appendicectomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


LLM response

31 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.7%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 100%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. 
Quote: "Subjects and Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1990 and 2012."
Reasoning: The authors mention the research question and inclusion criteria, but there is no explicit mention of a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. 
Quote: "Once identification of possible relevant articles had occurred, a single reviewer screened abstracts."
Reasoning: The authors mention that a single reviewer screened the abstracts, but there is no mention of a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
Response: [No]

A3. 
Quote: "A review of the literature was performed to identify all published evidence relating to the development of a pediatric IAA postoperatively after either LA or OA."
Reasoning: The authors mention a literature review but do not provide details about the databases used, the years covered, or the search strategy.
Response: [No]

A4. 
Quote: "Abstracts relating to presentations that had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal were not included in the final analysis."
Reasoning: The authors mention exclusion of non-peer-reviewed sources, but there is no explicit mention of searching for grey literature.
Response: [No]

A5. 
Quote: "Sixty-six studies with a total of 22,060 pediatric patients were included."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of included studies, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. 
Quote: "The 66 studies included in the present analysis contained data on 22,060 pediatric patients who underwent LA or OA for acute appendicitis: LA, 9600 (43.5%); OA, 12,460 (56.5%)."
Reasoning: The authors provide aggregated data on the participants and interventions in the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. 
Quote: "Contingency tables were designed for each of the outcome measures, and data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test."
Reasoning: The authors mention the use of statistical methods to assess the quality of the included studies, but do not provide a detailed description of the methods used.
Response: [No]

A8. 
Quote: "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
Reasoning: The authors mention the importance of considering the quality of the included studies in the analysis and conclusions, but do not explicitly state how this was done.
Response: [No]

A9. 
Quote: "Data were extracted from the individual studies and collated on a database."
Reasoning: The authors mention data extraction and collation, but do not describe methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [No]

A10. 
Quote: "Publication bias was assessed for each of the outcome measures using funnel plots (OR plotted against corresponding patient number for individual studies)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the use of funnel plots to assess publication bias.
Response: [Yes]

A11. 
Quote: "No competing financial interests exist."
Reasoning: The authors disclose potential conflicts of interest for the systematic review, but do not mention the funding sources for each of the included studies.
Response: [No]


P1. 
Quote: "The Incidence of Intraabdominal Abscess Formation Following Laparoscopic Appendicectomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. 
Quote: "Abstract: Aims: Recent systematic reviews have suggested an increased incidence of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) formation following laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) compared with the open approach (OA)."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. 
Quote: "Introduction: Acute appendicitis is a very common pathology encountered in both pediatric and adult patient populations, with a lifetime risk of 7%–8%."
Reasoning: The introduction describes the rationale for the review.
Response: [Yes]

P4. 
Quote: "Subjects and Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1990 and 2012."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. 
Quote: "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used in the formulation of the systematic review and meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The authors mention the use of PRISMA for the review, but do not provide information about a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. 
Quote: "Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify studies that investigated the incidence of IAA following LA and OA in pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study eligibility criteria.
Response: [Yes]

P7. 
Quote: "A review of the literature was performed to identify all published evidence relating to the development of a pediatric IAA postoperatively after either LA or OA."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. 
Quote: "To ensure that all relevant articles were identified and included in the final analysis, broad search terms were used (including variations of the multiple key words), and multiple databases were screened."
Reasoning: The authors provide a description of the search strategy.
Response: [Yes]

P9. 
Quote: "Once identification of possible relevant articles had occurred, a single reviewer screened abstracts."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. 
Quote: "Data were extracted from the individual studies and collated on a database."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

P11. 
Quote: "The main outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative IAA formation following either LA or OA in pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. 
Quote: "Contingency tables were designed for each of the outcome measures, and data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. 
Quote: "ORs and 95% CIs were calculated (an OR of >1 indicated a more favorable outcome for LA compared with OA), and corresponding Forrest plots were constructed using summary data."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. 
Quote: "Data were extracted from the individual studies and collated on a database."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. 
Quote: "Publication bias was assessed for each of the outcome measures using funnel plots (OR plotted against corresponding patient number for individual studies)."
Reasoning: The authors specify the assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P16. 
Quote: "Subset analyses were performed on (1) studies reporting direct comparisons between LA and OA and (2) patients with complicated appendicitis (presence of perforation, intraabdominal pus, or an intraoperative phlegmon/mass)."
Reasoning: The authors describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P17. 
Quote: "Sixty-six studies with a total of 22,060 pediatric patients were included: 56.5% OA and 43.5% LA."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. 
Quote: "The 66 studies included in the present analysis contained data on 22,060 pediatric patients who underwent LA or OA for acute appendicitis: LA, 9600 (43.5%); OA, 12,460 (56.5%)."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. 
Quote: "Contingency tables were designed for each of the outcome measures, and data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test."
Reasoning: The authors present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. 
Quote: "IAA. Appendicectomy was complicated by IAA formation in a total of 615 of 22,060 patients (2.8%)."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each intervention group for all outcomes considered.
Response: [Yes]

P21. 
Quote: "IAA. Appendicectomy was complicated by IAA formation in a total of 615 of 22,060 patients (2.8%)."
Reasoning: The authors present results of each meta-analysis done.
Response: [Yes]

P22. 
Quote: "Publication bias was assessed for each of the outcome measures using funnel plots (OR plotted against corresponding patient number for individual studies)."
Reasoning: The authors present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. 
Quote: "Subset analyses were performed on (1) studies reporting direct comparisons between LA and OA and (2) patients with complicated appendicitis (presence of perforation, intraabdominal pus, or an intraoperative phlegmon/mass)."
Reasoning: The authors give results of additional analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P24. 
Quote: "Conclusions: The IAA incidence is comparable in LA versus OA in pediatric patients. LA confers a significantly lower risk of other postoperative complications, including WI and SBO."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. 
Quote: "This systematic review of pediatric patients has shown that there is no difference between the LA and OA techniques in terms of IAA formation, which is different from the findings of the Cochrane review."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at study and outcome level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. 
Quote: "Conclusions: The IAA incidence is comparable in LA versus OA in pediatric patients. LA confers a significantly lower risk of other postoperative complications, including WI and SBO."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P27. 
Quote: "No competing financial interests exist."
Reasoning: The authors describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

127. Nicolau 2011: Is laparoscopy still needed in blunt abdominal trauma

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


LLM response

13 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Scopul lucrãrii noastre este de a evalua rolul actual al laparoscopiei în CA." (The aim of this study is to assess the role of laparoscopy in CA.)
Reasoning: The authors state the aim of their study, but there is no mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A systematic review and a comprehensive literature search was performed at the U.S. National Library of Medicine site in Medline and PubMed from January 2000 to 31 December 2007."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search in two databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was included in the search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Sixty-six articles were reviewed, which included 22 case studies, 27 case reports, 17 reviews and 2 guidelines."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information on the types of studies included, but do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was considered in the conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Conflict of interest statement: the author does not have any conflict of interest."
Reasoning: The authors provide a conflict of interest statement for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Rezumat Mai este utilã laparoscopia în contuziile abdominale?" (Abstract: Is laparoscopy still needed in blunt abdominal trauma?)
Reasoning: The title does not identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis.
Response: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract Introduction: Laparoscopy, as a minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic tool in blunt abdominal trauma (BAT), is not commonly used and has been shown to be controversial. The aim of this study is to assess the role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and therapy of BAT. Methods: A systematic review and a comprehensive literature search was performed at the U.S. National Library of Medicine site in Medline and PubMed from January 2000 to 31 December 2007. This article attempts to outline the efficacy, the indications, contraindications, surgical technique and therapeutic possibilities of laparoscopy in BAT. Pediatric surgery articles and those addressing penetrating abdominal wounds, nontraumatic abdominal emergencies and iatrogenic injuries were excluded from this review. Results: Sixty-six articles were reviewed, which included 22 case studies, 27 case reports, 17 reviews and 2 guidelines. The reviewed articles comprised 343 patients with BAT and laparoscopic approach. Therapeutic laparoscopy was possible in 168 cases (48,98%), 51 cases were converted (14,87%), overlooked injuries were absent, 6 patients had complications (1,75%), no mortality laparoscopy-related. The main indications for laparoscopy in BAT include the confirmation of suspected diaphragmatic defects, suspected hollow viscus and Is laparoscopy still needed in blunt abdominal trauma? A.E. Nicolau Department of Surgery, Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania Chirurgia (2011) 106: 59-66 Nr. 1, Ianuarie - Februarie Copyright© Celsius Corresponding author: Alexandru Eugen Nicolau, MD Department of Surgery, Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania E-mail: anicolau@easynet.ro mesenteric injuries, in patients with inconclusive clinical exams and abdominal imaging. Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) is also indicated in patients with suspected intra-abdominal injuries when advanced emergency imaging investigations are unavailable. Laparoscopy allows the surgeon to perform hemo- stasis, resections, suturing, autotransfusion, etc. Conclusion: Although is not widely used, laparoscopy could still be useful in selected patients with BAT who have equivo- cal findings on clinical exam and imaging investigations in order to clarify the lesional diagnosis, thus avoiding unneces- sary laparotomies. Multicenter prospective studies are needed to better assess the role of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma. Key words: blunt abdominal trauma, laparoscopy, diagnosis, therapy"
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, methods, results, and conclusions. However, it does not provide information on limitations and there is no systematic review registration number.
Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Laparoscopia diagnosticã æi terapeuticã în contuziile abdominale (CA) are o utilizare limitatã æi chiar controversatã, datoritã în special progreselor fãcute de explorãrile imagistice actuale." (Laparoscopy, as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in blunt abdominal trauma (BAT), is not commonly used and has been shown to be controversial, mainly due to the advancements in current imaging explorations.)
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "Scopul lucrãrii noastre este de a evalua rolul actual al laparoscopiei în CA." (The aim of this study is to assess the role of laparoscopy in CA.)
Reasoning: The authors state the objective of their study, but do not provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "A systematic review and a comprehensive literature search was performed at the U.S. National Library of Medicine site in Medline and PubMed from January 2000 to 31 December 2007. Pediatric surgery articles and those addressing penetrating abdominal wounds, nontraumatic abdominal emergencies and iatrogenic injuries were excluded from this review."
Reasoning: The authors specify the years considered and some exclusion criteria for the studies, but do not provide detailed information on the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A systematic review and a comprehensive literature search was performed at the U.S. National Library of Medicine site in Medline and PubMed from January 2000 to 31 December 2007."
Reasoning: The authors describe the databases used for the search and the dates of coverage.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "Sixty-six articles were reviewed, which included 22 case studies, 27 case reports, 17 reviews and 2 guidelines."
Reasoning: The authors provide the number of articles reviewed and included in the review, but do not provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide the characteristics for each study or the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "Although is not widely used, laparoscopy could still be useful in selected patients with BAT who have equivo- cal findings on clinical exam and imaging investigations in order to clarify the lesional diagnosis, thus avoiding unneces- sary laparotomies."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "In carefully selected cases with BAT, laparoscopy is still an effective and safe diagnostic and therapeutic tool, which can significantly reduce the number of unnecessary laparotomies and bears the hallmark advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Prospective multicenter studies are necessary to certify the role of laparoscopy in the near future."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

128. Oliveira 2016: Neophalloplasty in boys with aphallia: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.2%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "We performed a Pubmed search using the terms: neophalloplasty, neophallus, and phalloplasty."
Reasoning: The authors mention only one database (Pubmed) and do not provide details about the years searched, keywords/MESH terms used, or any supplementary search strategies.
Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention whether grey literature was included or excluded.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: "A total of 319 articles were identified in the initial search. When limited to the pediatric population, the search was reduced to only 19 articles."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of articles identified and included, but do not provide a list of these studies or mention excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Among the different techniques presented in 19 papers collected initially, we were able to assemble reconstructive procedures into two groups: microsurgical and non-microsurgical techniques."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the scientific quality of the included studies, so it cannot be determined whether it was used in formulating conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Conflict of interest: None. Funding: None."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there was no conflict of interest or funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Neophalloplasty in boys with aphallia: A systematic review"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not provide an abstract or structured summary.
Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Aphallia is a rare penile congenital abnormality. The aim of this systematic review was to assess all available literature on neophalloplasty in infancy with an interest in technical alternatives and clinical outcome."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The aim of this systematic review was to assess all available literature of neophalloplasty in infancy with an interest in technical alternatives, advantages and disadvantages of the method, clinical outcome, complications, psychological follow-up, parental and patient penile self-perception, sexual development, and expectations of patients."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, although not all PICOS elements are clearly defined.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "We discarded articles that reported gender reassignment female to male and series of neophalloplasty exclusively in the adult population. Finally, we selected articles that presented technical alternatives for penile construction in cases of penile dysgenesis, especially aphallia in children and/or adolescents."
Reasoning: The authors specify some study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "We performed a Pubmed search using the terms: neophalloplasty, neophallus, and phalloplasty."
Reasoning: The authors mention one database (Pubmed) but do not provide dates of coverage or the date of the last search.
Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "We performed a Pubmed search using the terms: neophalloplasty, neophallus, and phalloplasty."
Reasoning: The authors mention the search terms used but do not provide a full electronic search strategy or any limits used.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "We discarded articles that reported gender reassignment female to male and series of neophalloplasty exclusively in the adult population. Finally, we selected articles that presented technical alternatives for penile construction in cases of penile dysgenesis, especially aphallia in children and/or adolescents."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not describe the method of data extraction or any processes for obtaining and confirming data.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not list or define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "A total of 319 articles were identified in the initial search. When limited to the pediatric population, the search was reduced to only 19 articles."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Among the different techniques presented in 19 papers collected initially, we were able to assemble reconstructive procedures into two groups: microsurgical and non-microsurgical techniques."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics for each study or provide the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None available.
Reasoning: The text does not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "In assessing recent literature, it seems rational that neophalloplasty should be regarded as the preferred strategy for boys born with aphallia, in opposition to female gender assignment."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "Studies reporting on late clinical presentation post puberty, specifically in regards to sexual development-pleasure and quality of life, are still lacking."
Reasoning: The authors discuss some limitations of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Taking recent literature into account, it seems rational that neophalloplasty be regarded as the preferred strategy for boys born with aphallia."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: "Funding: None."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there was no funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

129. Oomen 2012: Open Versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Major Complications

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.4%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to compare the results of both surgical strategies by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and aim before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Potentially eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors (MWNO, RB) for inclusion and exclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Retrieval of studies was performed through a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Ovid (Ovid Technologies, New York, NY) and Cochrane (Cochrane database of systematic reviews)."
- Reasoning: The authors described their search strategy and databases used.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Four RCTs with a total of 502 patients (OP 255, LP 247) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the included studies but did not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Study details and the quality check of all RCTs are given in Tables 1, 2, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors provided details of the included studies in tables.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Studies were reviewed independently for quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In our systematic review of high-level evidence, LP was found to be superior to OP with respect to a shorter time to full feed but not regarding (major) postoperative complications or length of hospital stay."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software ver. 5.0 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, 2008) was used for data entry and statistical analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Disclosures Dr. M. W. N. Oomen, Dr. L. T. Hoekstra, Dr. R. Bakx, Dr. D. T. Ubbink, and Prof. Dr. H. A. Heij have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose."
- Reasoning: The authors disclosed any potential conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Open Versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Major Complications"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Background There is an ongoing debate about whether laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) or open pyloromyotomy (OP) is the best option for treating hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS). The aim of this study was to compare the results of both surgical strategies by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "There are still contradictory results in the literature with regard to the benefits and disadvantages of LP compared to the open procedure to treat infants with HPS."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the results of LP and open pyloromyotomy (OP) by means of a systematic review of the available randomized trials while focusing on major complications (i.e., incomplete pyloromyotomy, perforation, and need for re-operation)."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated the research question and objectives.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide any registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies were included in the review if they were RCTs that compared the results of LP and OP in children with HPS with admission time after pyloromyotomy and postoperative complication rate as outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Retrieval of studies was performed through a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Ovid (Ovid Technologies, New York, NY) and Cochrane (Cochrane database of systematic reviews)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in their search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Keywords and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used were ‘‘pyloric stenosis,’’ ‘‘pyloromyotomy,’’ ‘‘comparative studies,’’ ‘‘open,’’ ‘‘laparoscopic,’’ and ‘‘postoperative complications.’’"
- Reasoning: The authors provided their search strategy.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Potentially eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors (MWNO, RB) for inclusion and exclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors described their process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "From the included studies, data on setting, methodological quality [according to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (http://dcc.cochrane.org/sites/dcc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/RCT)], population, and type of surgery were extracted by two authors independently, as well as data on primary and secondary outcome measures."
- Reasoning: The authors described their data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Primary outcome was major postoperative complications (i.e., incomplete pyloromyotomy, perforation, and need for reoperation). Secondary outcomes were time to full feed, postoperative hospital stay, and any other postoperative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Studies were reviewed independently for quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors described their methods for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Results for comparisons of dichotomous outcomes (e.g., major postoperative complications) are expressed as risk differences [or absolute risk reduction, ARR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software ver. 5.0 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, 2008) was used for data entry and statistical analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they assessed the risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial search yielded 361 potentially relevant articles, of which 346 articles were excluded because of failure to meet the inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors provided numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Four RCTs with a total of 502 patients (OP 255, LP 247) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics of each study included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "All studies included in this review reported major complications, with a total of 12 (4.9%) major complications in children who underwent LP and 5 (2.0%) in the OP group."
- Reasoning: The authors presented summary data and effect estimates for each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Using a random-effects approach, we found no significant difference between LP and OP (ARR 3%, 95% CI -3–8%)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In our systematic review of high-level evidence, LP was found to be superior to OP with respect to a shorter time to full feed but not regarding (major) postoperative complications or length of hospital stay."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "In any procedure that is introduced into daily surgical care, new problems can occur during and after surgery that were not recognized or foreseen by the surgeon and his team. This learning curve in the four RCTs plays an underestimated role in major complications seen in the laparoscopic group, which may also have influenced secondary outcomes such as postoperative hospital stay."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "If the surgeon is able to perform both procedures, it is at the discretion of the surgeon or center to make a well-founded decision between the two options."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

130. Parolini 2016: The management of newborns with esophageal atresia and right aortic arch: A systematic review or still unsolved problem

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA 0 1


LLM response

22 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This study provides a systematic review of the literature, focusing on epidemiology, diagnostic assessment and management of children with EA and RAA, comparing the morbidity and mortality rates of different surgical strategies."
- Reasoning: The authors state the research question and inclusion criteria in the introduction.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two independent authors extracted information related to each eligible study."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent authors were involved in data extraction.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The PubMed database was searched for studies of children with EA and RAA published from January 1990 to December 2014."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the database used and the time frame for the search, but do not provide details about the search strategy or additional sources.
- Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All were single-institution, retrospective studies, case reports or case series (class of evidence III and evidence rating scale E)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the level of evidence and the strength of guideline recommendations in diagnostic scales."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "This inevitably introduces bias in morbidity rates due to the presence of various confounding variables such as technical details, gap measurement methods and surgeons’ personal experience."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "☆ Funding Source: No funding was necessary for this study. ☆☆ Financial Disclosure: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. ★ Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose their conflicts of interest and funding sources.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "The management of newborns with esophageal atresia and right aortic arch: A systematic review or still unsolved problem"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Aim of the study: The management of newborns with esophageal atresia (EA) and right aortic arch (RAA) is still an unsolved problem. This study provides a systematic review of epidemiology, diagnosis, management and short-term results of children with EA and RAA."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The management of newborns with esophageal atresia (EA) and right aortic arch (RAA) is still an unsolved problem."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the introduction.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This study provides a systematic review of the literature, focusing on epidemiology, diagnostic assessment and management of children with EA and RAA, comparing the morbidity and mortality rates of different surgical strategies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Inclusion criteria were English language articles reporting original data on epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of newborns with EA."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The PubMed database was searched for studies of children with EA and RAA published from January 1990 to December 2014."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information source and the date range for the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a full electronic search strategy.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The initial PubMed search yielded 125 potentially relevant articles. Eight eligible articles met the inclusion criteria in the end."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two independent authors extracted information related to each eligible study."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "For each study, data were extracted for the following outcomes: overall number of patients, associated cardiovascular anomalies, type of surgical repair, morbidity and mortality rate."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the level of evidence and the strength of guideline recommendations in diagnostic scales."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial PubMed search yielded 125 potentially relevant articles. Eight eligible articles met the inclusion criteria in the end."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened and included, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "All were single-institution, retrospective studies, case reports or case series (class of evidence III and evidence rating scale E)."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide the citations.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data or effect estimates for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Although RAA occurs in only 3% of patients with EA, this condition must be taken into account in the preoperative diagnostic assessment of these babies."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "This inevitably introduces bias in morbidity rates due to the presence of various confounding variables such as technical details, gap measurement methods and surgeons’ personal experience."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "A multicenter prospective study comparing RT and LT in infants with EA and RAA is strongly required."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "☆ Funding Source: No funding was necessary for this study."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the funding source for the systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

131. Parolini 2014: Cervical/thoracotomic/thoracoscopic approaches for H-type congenital tracheo-esophageal fistula: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 1 1 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA 0 1


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.4%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We therefore undertook a systematic review of the available case reports, case series and reviews on H-type TEF treatment, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the different surgical approaches according to the position of the fistula."
- Reasoning: The authors state their research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two independent authors extracted information related to the study."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent authors were involved in data extraction.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) was searched for studies on treatment of H-type TEF that were published since January 1977."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their search strategy, including the database used and the time frame.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on publication status.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "For each study, data were extracted for three primary outcomes and many secondary outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extracted from the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the level of evidence and the strength of guideline recommendations in diagnosis scales."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the methodological quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The evidence base in regard to the treatment of H-type fistula in children is poor, and as well stated by Tovar and Fragoso [31], in the absence of evidence-based strategies, ‘‘eminence-based’’ ones are legitimate."
- Reasoning: The authors consider the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention combining the findings of the included studies.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose their conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Cervical/thoracotomic/thoracoscopic approaches for H-type congenital tracheo-esophageal fistula: A systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Purpose: Aim of this systematic review is to investigate the thoracic and cervical surgical approaches of H-type tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) according to the position of the fistula."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) without esophageal atresia (H-type TEF) is a rare congenital malformation that accounts for about 4% of tracheo-esophageal malformations and has an incidence of around 1:50,000–80,000 births [1]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We therefore undertook a systematic review of the available case reports, case series and reviews on H-type TEF treatment, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the different surgical approaches according to the position of the fistula."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Inclusion criteria were English and French articles that reported original data on treatment of newborn affected by trachea-esophageal fistula without esophageal atresia. Eligible study designs were cohort, case report, case series and review."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) was searched for studies on treatment of H-type TEF that were published since January 1977. The date of the last search was December 2012."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The following keywords were searched individually or in association: isolated trachea-esophageal fistula, H-type tracheo-esophageal fistula, N-type tracheo-esophageal fistu- la, cervicotomy, thoracoscopy and thoracotomy."
- Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Titles and abstracts of identified publications were checked and reviewed against the predefined inclusion criteria, and afterward, the full text the articles were similarly assessed for eligibility."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two independent authors extracted information related to the study."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "For each study, data were extracted for three primary outcomes and many secondary outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the level of evidence and the strength of guideline recommendations in diagnosis scales."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial PubMed search yielded 185 potentially relevant articles. Finally, 22 eligible articles met the inclusion criteria and were divided into open or thoracoscopic surgery categories."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "For open surgery group 17 studies were selected [2,8–23], encompassing a total of 90 children."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Seventeen studies were selected for open surgery group, and most of them agree on the importance of pre-operative diagnosis of the fistula by preliminary tracheoscopy."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each study, but do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The evidence base in regard to the treatment of H-type fistula in children is poor, and as well stated by Tovar and Fragoso [31], in the absence of evidence-based strategies, ‘‘eminence-based’’ ones are legitimate."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "This systematic review had some inherent limitations. Firstly, it included a small number of patients, and many endpoints of the study could not be compared in a statistically relevant way."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Further well-designed, prospective studies which take into account selection and performance bias, and the issue of confounding are strongly required."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose their funding sources.
- Response: [Yes]

132. Peters 2013: Morbidity and mortality in total esophagogastric dissociation: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


LLM response

14 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.3%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to analyze data from all published cases of TOGD in children with particular attention to patient characteristics, indications, complications and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Medline, PubMed, National Library of Health and Google Scholarly articles from year 1997 to August 2011 were searched. Search terms used were [total] ([o]esophago-gastric/ gastro-[o]esophageal) (dissociation/disconnection/separation)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases and search terms used, but do not mention supplementary strategies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "One hundred eighty-one patients who had undergone TOGD were identified from 10 articles, personal communication with authors of these articles and data held at our institution."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for combining the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention an assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflicts of interest: None."
- Reasoning: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Morbidity and mortality in total esophagogastric dissociation: A systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Background/Purpose: Total esophagogastric dissociation has been described as both a primary and a rescue procedure for patients with severe gastroesophageal reflux. Although most commonly used in the neurologically impaired, it has also been used in those with no neurological impairment. The main objective of this study was to determine morbidity and mortality for this procedure. Methods: All published cases of esophagogastric dissociation in children were identified. Series were updated where possible by personal communication with the author. Patient characteristics, indications, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Results: One hundred eighty-one cases were identified. One hundred seventeen were primary operations and 64 were rescue procedures. There were 29 (16.0%) early complications and 28 (15.5%) late complications with 6 (3.3%) deaths related to the procedure of a total of 35 deaths. Twenty-one patients (11.6%) required re-operation in the study periods. Conclusions: Esophagogastric dissociation has an acceptable morbidity and mortality. It is useful as both a primary and a rescue procedure."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Total esophagogastric dissociation (TOGD) is an anti-reflux procedure originally described as a “rescue” procedure for use in children with neurological impairment (NI) by Bianchi [1] in 1997. Its use has subsequently been broadened to include neurologically normal children and adults with NI [2]. TOGD is now used as both a primary surgical procedure and as “rescue” therapy following failed fundoplication."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to analyze data from all published cases of TOGD in children with particular attention to patient characteristics, indications, complications and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All published cases of esophagogastric dissociation in children were identified. Series were updated where possible by personal communication with the author."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Medline, PubMed, National Library of Health and Google Scholarly articles from year 1997 to August 2011 were searched. Search terms used were [total] ([o]esophago-gastric/ gastro-[o]esophageal) (dissociation/disconnection/separation)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date of the last search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Medline, PubMed, National Library of Health and Google Scholarly articles from year 1997 to August 2011 were searched. Search terms used were [total] ([o]esophago-gastric/ gastro-[o]esophageal) (dissociation/disconnection/separation)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy for multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Patient characteristics, indications, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "One hundred eighty-one patients who had undergone TOGD were identified from 10 articles, personal communication with authors of these articles and data held at our institution."
- Reasoning: The authors give the number of studies included in the review, but do not provide numbers of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, reasons for exclusions, or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "One hundred eighty-one patients who had undergone TOGD were identified from 10 articles, personal communication with authors of these articles and data held at our institution."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Review of all available cases of TOGD has revealed an acceptable complication and mortality rate. Rates of re-operation are comparable to and lower than some reoperation rates following failed primary fundoplication in the series discussed previously and markedly better than those for esophageal atresia patients or following redo fundoplication."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "TOGD is a useful procedure in managing severe GOR in NI children, in NN children with specific conditions including esophageal atresia and as a rescue procedure following failed fundoplication."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

133. Peycelon 2014: Minimally Invasive Surgery in Childhood Cancer: A Challenging Future

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

10 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "Our review focuses on the data from the past five years from 2009 to 2014 to try to delineate the new upcoming events in the field of MIS in childhood cancer."
Reasoning: The authors state their research question and inclusion criteria.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any process of duplicate study selection or data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (“minimally invasive surgery,” “laparoscopy,” “thoracoscopy,” “childhood/children/pediatric cancer”)."
Reasoning: The authors describe their search strategy, including the database used and the search terms.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not discuss the scientific quality of the included studies in relation to their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: This is a narrative review and does not involve combining the findings of different studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "Conflict of Interest: None."
Reasoning: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Minimally Invasive Surgery in Childhood Cancer: A Challenging Future"
Reasoning: The title does not identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis.
Response: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Abstract: Introduction Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative to open approach for cancer diagnosis in children 20 years ago, but only recently for tumor resection. The purpose of this review is to update the use of MIS in pediatric oncological surgery over the past five years. Methods The authors conducted a systematic review of papers published between 2009 and 2014 focusing on indications and results of the technique. Results New indications in Wilms tumor, pheochromocytoma, and lung nodules have emerged, thanks to the growing use of MIS in benign urological and thoracic surgery with satisfactory results. Case control studies comparing MIS to open approach have been published for the first time in more classical indications such as neurogenic tumors, while robot-assisted procedure has shown concern in results about its early experience in solid tumors. Conclusion MIS is a promising method for removal of thoracic and abdominal malignancies as long as oncological principles are strictly followed. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to further delineate objective indications."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "In the 1990s, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative to open approach for cancer diagnosis in children."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the emergence of MIS as an alternative to open surgery for cancer diagnosis in children.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "Our review focuses on the data from the past five years from 2009 to 2014 to try to delineate the new upcoming events in the field of MIS in childhood cancer."
Reasoning: The authors state their objective but do not provide a clear PICOS statement.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "The authors conducted a systematic review of papers published between 2009 and 2014 focusing on indications and results of the technique."
Reasoning: The authors specify the years considered for the review but do not provide other eligibility criteria.
Response: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (“minimally invasive surgery,” “laparoscopy,” “thoracoscopy,” “childhood/children/pediatric cancer”)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the database used and the search terms, but do not provide the date of the last search.
Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (“minimally invasive surgery,” “laparoscopy,” “thoracoscopy,” “childhood/children/pediatric cancer”)."
Reasoning: The authors provide the search terms used in PubMed, but do not provide a full search strategy.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not list or define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not state any principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: This is a narrative review and does not involve combining the results of different studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, or reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not present the characteristics of each study or provide citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not present summary data or effect estimates for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: This is a narrative review and does not involve a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "MIS, regardless of the approach—thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, retroperitoneoscopy, robot-assisted—is a new field in pediatric solid tumors with no randomized trials to date. Only case control studies have shown its noninferiority to open approach, but in experienced hands and with the absolute respect to oncological rules, MIS is a tempting procedure needing further development to precisely define its objective indications and limits in oncological pediatric surgery."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study, outcome, or review level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "MIS, regardless of the approach—thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, retroperitoneoscopy, robot-assisted—is a new field in pediatric solid tumors with no randomized trials to date. Only case control studies have shown its noninferiority to open approach, but in experienced hands and with the absolute respect to oncological rules, MIS is a tempting procedure needing further development to precisely define its objective indications and limits in oncological pediatric surgery."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: Not applicable.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the review.
Response: [No]

134. Pfistermuller 2015: Meta-analysis of complication rates of the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was undertaken, using Medline and Pubmed, in order to identify relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic literature search but do not provide any information about a pre-established protocol or research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The following data were extracted independently from each article by two reviewers (K.P and P.C): study size; degree of hypospadias (classified by meatal location: distal e midshaft distally, proximal e proximal shaft proximally); primary or secondary repair; repair type (standard vs modified TIP); modification (if used); mean length of follow-up; study duration; geographical location; and rates of meatal stenosis, fistula, urethral stricture and unplanned re-operation to treat complications."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two reviewers independently extracted data from the articles.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was undertaken, using Medline and Pubmed, in order to identify relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic literature search in two databases, but do not provide information about supplementary search strategies.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Of the 189 studies identified, only 49 (4675 patients) [14,17e64] fulfilled the inclusion criteria, as detailed below:"
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies identified and included, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The following data were extracted independently from each article by two reviewers (K.P and P.C): study size; degree of hypospadias (classified by meatal location: distal e midshaft distally, proximal e proximal shaft proximally); primary or secondary repair; repair type (standard vs modified TIP); modification (if used); mean length of follow-up; study duration; geographical location; and rates of meatal stenosis, fistula, urethral stricture and unplanned re-operation to treat complications."
- Reasoning: The authors provide information about the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Analyses were conducted using random and mixed-effects models, with the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "None of the authors have any conflicts of interest or funding to declare."
- Reasoning: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Review article: Meta-analysis of complication rates of the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Objective: To determine overall complication rates of the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair and assess the effects of technical modifications, length of follow-up and geographical location of reported results. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken, using Medline and Pubmed, in order to identify relevant articles. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled complication rates. Meta-regression was performed for each outcome by using mixed effects models with type of hypospadias (primary distal, primary proximal and secondary) as predictors. Results: Of the 189 articles that were identified, 49 studies (4675 patients) were included in the analysis. Fistula and re-operation rates were significantly higher in secondary repairs (15.5% and 23.3%) compared to primary proximal (10.3% and 12.2%) and primary distal (5.7% and 4.5%) (P Z 0.045 and P < 0.001, respectively). Technical modifications reduced fistula rates from 10.3% to 3.3% (P Z 0.003) and re-operation rates from 13.6% to 2.8% (P Z 0.001). The rate of meatal stenosis was highest in the secondary repairs, with follow-up >1 year (12.7%). Comparison of geographical location showed that complication rates for all but one variable were significantly lower in North America when compared to Europe and the rest of the world. Mean meatal stenosis rates were 1.8% in North America, 3.4% in Europe and 8.2% in the rest of the world (P Z 0.002). This remained significant in a multivariable model incorporating repair technique and length of follow-up (P Z 0.046). Mean rates of urethral stricture, fistula and re-operation followed a similar pattern (P Z 0.045, P Z 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). Mean follow-up was shortest in the North American group, at 11.9 months, compared to Europe, at 17.8 months, and the rest of the world, at 18.9 months. Discussion: The present meta-analysis has shown that the lowest complication rates for the TIP repair are when it is applied to primary distal hypospadias. Complication rates are higher for all variables when the TIP repair is used for primary proximal hypospadias. Lower complication rates than those reported in this TIP review have been documented in some studies using a staged repair for correction of primary proximal or secondary hypospadias [11,12,68], implying that a staged approach may be superior to the TIP repair in these settings. Documentation of follow-up duration was limited, making assessment of the impact of length of follow-up difficult. Geographical location had a noticeable effect on outcome, with all but one complication being lower in the North American than the other groups. Mean follow-up was shortest in North America and it is suggested that the short follow-up in the North American studies may have led to under-reporting of late complications. Conclusion: The TIP repair has evolved to incorporate modifications that have significantly lowered complications. Higher complication rates are seen with secondary and proximal repairs; however, limited, published long-term data impair a true assessment of outcome."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study including background, objectives, data sources, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Over 300 methods of surgical repair have been described for the correction of hypospadias, with no one procedure accepted as the gold standard for each degree of hypospadias. First described in 1994 by Snodgrass [1], the tubularized incised plate (TIP) urethroplasty has become the most popular technique for distal hypospadias [2,3]. Originally described for correction of distal hypospadias, it has also been applied to more severe proximal forms. There is a wide discrepancy between published complication rates for different repair types [4e16] and a poor evidence base for the current management of hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the existing literature.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Due to the popularity of the TIP repair technique, a large number of papers giving outcomes and complication rates have been published. As there is a paucity of randomised, controlled trials, a meta-analysis of the outcomes of the TIP repair was performed with a view to: 1. Assessing the appropriateness of its application to all degrees of hypospadias. 2. Evaluating the long-term results by analysing the pooled complication rates to accurately determine representative complication rates for this technique. 3. Reviewing the effects of technical modifications, length of follow-up and geographical location of these complications."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Of the 189 studies identified, only 49 (4675 patients) [14,17e64] fulfilled the inclusion criteria, as detailed below: 1. Paediatric populations solely 2. TIP technique used 3. Complications given for at least one of those under consideration 4. Population previously unreported 5. Article in English 6. No foreskin reconstruction 7. Results separated by meatal location and primary or secondary repair."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was undertaken, using Medline and Pubmed, in order to identify relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search but do not provide the dates of coverage or the date of the last search.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Medline and Pubmed were searched in order to identify articles published between 1994 and 2012. The search terms ‘tubularized incised plate urethroplasty/Snodgrass repair/ technique  outcomes/complications  follow-up/long term follow-up’ were used."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used for the databases, including the search terms and the time period.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Of the 189 studies identified, only 49 (4675 patients) [14,17e64] fulfilled the inclusion criteria, as detailed below: 1. Paediatric populations solely 2. TIP technique used 3. Complications given for at least one of those under consideration 4. Population previously unreported 5. Article in English 6. No foreskin reconstruction 7. Results separated by meatal location and primary or secondary repair."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies based on specific inclusion criteria.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The following data were extracted independently from each article by two reviewers (K.P and P.C): study size; degree of hypospadias (classified by meatal location: distal e midshaft distally, proximal e proximal shaft proximally); primary or secondary repair; repair type (standard vs modified TIP); modification (if used); mean length of follow-up; study duration; geographical location; and rates of meatal stenosis, fistula, urethral stricture and unplanned re-operation to treat complications."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from the reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following data were extracted independently from each article by two reviewers (K.P and P.C): study size; degree of hypospadias (classified by meatal location: distal e midshaft distally, proximal e proximal shaft proximally); primary or secondary repair; repair type (standard vs modified TIP); modification (if used); mean length of follow-up; study duration; geographical location; and rates of meatal stenosis, fistula, urethral stricture and unplanned re-operation to treat complications."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Analyses were conducted using random and mixed-effects models, with the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Analyses were conducted using random and mixed-effects models, with the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining the results of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "Meta-regression was performed for each outcome using mixed effects models, with hypospadias types as predictors."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of additional analyses, specifically meta-regression.
- Answer: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Of the 189 studies identified, only 49 (4675 patients) [14,17e64] fulfilled the inclusion criteria, as detailed below: 1. Paediatric populations solely 2. TIP technique used 3. Complications given for at least one of those under consideration 4. Population previously unreported 5. Article in English 6. No foreskin reconstruction 7. Results separated by meatal location and primary or secondary repair."
- Reasoning: The authors give the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The following data were extracted independently from each article by two reviewers (K.P and P.C): study size; degree of hypospadias (classified by meatal location: distal e midshaft distally, proximal e proximal shaft proximally); primary or secondary repair; repair type (standard vs modified TIP); modification (if used); mean length of follow-up; study duration; geographical location; and rates of meatal stenosis, fistula, urethral stricture and unplanned re-operation to treat complications."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Fistula and re-operation rates were significantly higher in secondary repairs (15.5% and 23.3%) compared to primary proximal (10.3% and 12.2%) and primary distal (5.7% and 4.5%) (P Z 0.045 and P < 0.001, respectively). Technical modifications reduced fistula rates from 10.3% to 3.3% (P Z 0.003) and re-operation rates from 13.6% to 2.8% (P Z 0.001)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "Meta-regression was performed for each outcome using mixed effects models, with hypospadias types as predictors."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of additional analyses, specifically meta-regression.
- Answer: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The present meta-analysis has shown that the lowest complication rates for the TIP repair are when it is applied to primary distal hypospadias. Complication rates are higher for all variables when the TIP repair is used for primary proximal hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Lack of standardised outcome measure reporting has significantly reduced the available papers for the present study, which limited the power of the analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The complication rates after TIP for proximal and secondary procedures are substantial, and alternative techniques such as the two-stage repair should be considered. North American publications are based on shorter follow-up and it is therefore unsurprising that reported complication rates are lower than Europe and the rest of the world. Finally, additional long-term follow-up papers are required to further evaluate this popular hypospadias technique that has now been in use for 18 years."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "None of the authors have any conflicts of interest or funding to declare."
- Reasoning: The authors state that there was no funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

135. Puligandla 2015: Management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: A systematic review from the APSA outcomes and evidence based practice committee

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 1 1 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA 0 0


LLM response

24 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Six questions regarding CDH management were generated." "Given the paucity of literature on the subject, all studies irrespective of their rank in the levels of evidence hierarchy were included."
Reasoning: The authors established research questions and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "The searches were performed independently for each question with the aid of a health sciences librarian." "Two of the principal authors (P.P. and S.I.) independently scanned all titles as a first screen after which selected abstracts and/or full-length papers were collected for further review."
Reasoning: The authors describe a process of independent study selection and data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "Separate search terms were applied for each question using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases." "In addition to the articles that were located through the searches, we augmented the list by searching the reference list of each selected article to find further papers."
Reasoning: The authors used multiple databases and supplementary strategies for their literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: "Animal studies, case reports, non-English language publications, and review articles were excluded in addition to the articles that dealt with non-neonatal diaphragmatic conditions."
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including unpublished studies.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Data compiled for each article included sample size, description of the procedures performed or medications used, method of ventilation, use of ECMO, timing of repair, outcomes including mortality and morbidity, and type of patch used."
Reasoning: The authors describe the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "Studies selected for inclusion were critically appraised and ranked on their level of evidence based on the type of study (retrospective or prospective, randomized or not) per The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine."
Reasoning: The authors assessed and documented the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "Given the paucity of literature on the subject, all studies irrespective of their rank in the levels of evidence hierarchy were included."
Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for combining the findings of the included studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: A systematic review from the APSA outcomes and evidence based practice committee"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Objective: Variable management practices complicate the identification of optimal strategies for infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). This review critically appraises the available evidence to provide recommendations."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Despite significant advances in neonatal and surgical care, the management of newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) remains a challenge."
Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) Outcomes and Evidence Based Practice (OEBP) committee selected the following questions for this systematic review: 1. What is the optimal ventilator strategy for a newborn with CDH? 2. What is the best way to manage CDH-associated pulmonary hypertension (PHTN)? 3. Is there benefit to the use of pre- or postnatal corticosteroids? 4. Which mode of ECMO is best for CDH, and what is the optimal duration of treatment with ECMO? 5. What is the optimal technique to repair CDH (open versus minimally invasive) and which type of patch has the best outcome? 6. Is early repair or late repair of CDH better?"
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Studies that did not address the neonatal population were excluded, as were opinion pieces, case reports, and editorial review articles (other than systematic reviews or meta analyses). The automated searches were supplemented by a manual search of additional references from the bibliographies of included studies. While initially we planned to include only level 1 and level 2 studies, a paucity of high-level evidence required broadening the inclusion criteria to level 3 and level 4 studies."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "Separate search terms were applied for each question using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Searches were limited to articles published in the English language from January 1, 1980 through January 31, 2014. In addition to the articles that were located through the searches, we augmented the list by searching the reference list of each selected article to find further papers."
Reasoning: The authors describe all information sources in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "Separate search terms were applied for each question using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases."
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a full electronic search strategy for any database.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "The searches were performed independently for each question with the aid of a health sciences librarian who used broad Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms that were inclusive and redundant, and included wildcard based searches to ensure completeness. Using bibliography management software, duplicates were removed, creating a master list of titles and abstracts. Two of the principal authors (P.P. and S.I.) independently scanned all titles as a first screen after which selected abstracts and/or full-length papers were collected for further review."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Studies selected for inclusion were critically appraised and ranked on their level of evidence based on the type of study (retrospective or prospective, randomized or not) per The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (Table 1) [3], which also guided the recommendations generated for each question. Data compiled for each article included sample size, description of the procedures performed or medications used, method of ventilation, use of ECMO, timing of repair, outcomes including mortality and morbidity, and type of patch used."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Data compiled for each article included sample size, description of the procedures performed or medications used, method of ventilation, use of ECMO, timing of repair, outcomes including mortality and morbidity, and type of patch used."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "Studies selected for inclusion were critically appraised and ranked on their level of evidence based on the type of study (retrospective or prospective, randomized or not) per The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (Table 1) [3], which also guided the recommendations generated for each question."
Reasoning: The authors describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "A total of 3097 abstracts underwent initial title screening. Of these, 189 abstracts were selected for in-depth review of the abstract and/or full manuscript. We selected 98 of these manuscripts for the systematic review (Fig. 1)."
Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and a flow diagram.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Data compiled for each article included sample size, description of the procedures performed or medications used, method of ventilation, use of ECMO, timing of repair, outcomes including mortality and morbidity, and type of patch used."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "This systematic review by the APSA Outcomes and Evidence-based Practice Committee attempted to delineate best-evidence recommendations for specific aspects of CDH care. Disappointingly, the quantity of high-level evidence was severely lacking, which precludes the identification of definitive best practices."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "Disappointingly, the quantity of high-level evidence was severely lacking, which precludes the identification of definitive best practices."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Thus, it is imperative that we dedicate efforts to design high quality studies that will inform the development of best practices for these infants. As a start, multi institutional prospective observational trials would be beneficial in collecting updated information on outcomes and current practices."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

136. Reddy 2010: Ureteroscopy: The standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

11 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."
Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review but do not provide a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any process of duplicate study selection or data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."
Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review on PubMed but do not provide details about the search strategy or other databases used.
Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention whether grey literature was included in the search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included or excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "A total of 27 papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review were identified and the data were abstracted."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of papers included but do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any assessment of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention any conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Ureteroscopy: The standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in children"
Reasoning: The title does not identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis.
Response: [No]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "ABSTRACT Objectives: Advances in technology and the continued evolution in the design of ureteroscopes now permit a primary endoscopic approach to the upper urinary tract of pediatric patients on a routine basis to treat a diverse group of conditions that include urolithiasis, hematuria and strictures. The purpose of this review article is to demonstrate that ureteroscopic lithotripsy is now to be considered the standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in the pediatric patient, replacing shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first line of therapy. Additionally, the article will discuss the available endoscopic equipment and the lessons learned over the years to optimize the success of these procedures in children."
Reasoning: The abstract provides some elements such as objectives, background, and conclusions, but it does not provide a structured summary including all the required elements.
Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "INTRODUCTION There are a variety of treatment options that the urologist can offer the pediatric patient who presents with an upper tract stone*, including: • Extracorporal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) • Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) • Ureteroscopy (URS) • Open surgical procedures (Pyelolithotomy, ureterolithotomy)."
Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of existing treatment options for pediatric urolithiasis.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The purpose of this review article is to demonstrate that ureteroscopic lithotripsy is now to be considered the standard of care in the management of upper tract urolithiasis in the pediatric patient, replacing shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first line of therapy."
Reasoning: The introduction provides an objective but does not explicitly address all PICOS elements.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "A systematic review of the contemporary urological citations was conducted using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) search engine. We included only those papers that discussed original series of patients in this review."
Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review and include only original series of patients, but they do not provide detailed eligibility criteria.
Response: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A systematic review of articles written about ureteroscopy (URS) in the contemporary urological literature (1990–2009) on PubMed was undertaken."
Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review on PubMed from 1990 to 2009, but they do not mention any other information sources or the date of the last search.
Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a full electronic search strategy.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe the data collection process.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not list or define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "A total of 27 papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review were identified and the data were abstracted."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of papers included in the review but do not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or excluded, and do not provide a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present characteristics for each study or provide citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not give results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "In this systematic review of the literature, URS is shown to be safer and more efficacious than ESWL in the management of pediatric urolithiasis."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations at the study, outcome, or review level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "URS is safe and efficacious in the management of pediatric urolithiasis. URS should be considered an essential part of the armamentarium of any urologist involved in the care of children and is now considered the standard of care for the management of pediatric urolithiasis."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

137. Romao 2012: What is the best prosthetic material for patch repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia? Comparison and meta-analysis of porcine small intestinal submucosa and polytetrafluoroethylene

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 0 1 0 1 1 0 NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

24 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to compare recurrence, small bowel obstruction (SBO), and mortality rates for CDH repair between an absorbable (Surgisis [SIS]; Cook Biotech, Inc, West Lafayette, IN) and a nonabsorbable polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Gore-Tex; W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Neward, DE) material at our institution."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether two independent data extractors were used or whether a consensus procedure was in place for disagreements.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All publications describing both absorbable (SIS) and nonabsorbable (PTFE) material for treatment of CDH were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards), and CINAHL (1982 onwards) and from hand-searching journals and conference proceedings."
- Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and used additional strategies such as hand-searching journals and conference proceedings.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether grey literature was included in the search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A retrospective chart review was performed for all neonates with Bochdalek CDH undergoing patch closure at our institution from January 2000 to December 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Quality criteria used for study inclusion included (1) appropriate selection of comparison/control group; (2) control of factors such as selection bias, observation bias, and confounders; (3) completeness of follow-up; and (4) accurate outcome measurement."
- Reasoning: The authors assessed the quality of the included studies using specific criteria.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In summary, we found no difference in complication rates between SIS and PTFE patch repairs for patients with CDH."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality in the analysis and the conclusions of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed combining our data with the data from this study (Fig. 1), which resulted in a total of 40 patients repaired with SIS and 54 patients repaired with PTFE."
- Reasoning: The authors used meta-analysis to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether the authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether the authors acknowledged potential sources of support or conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "What is the best prosthetic material for patch repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernia? Comparison and meta-analysis of porcine small intestinal submucosa and polytetrafluoroethylene"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Background: Prosthetic patches are widely used for congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) repair. We compared the complication rate of absorbable (Surgisis [SIS]; Cook Biotech, Inc, West Lafayette, IN) and nonabsorbable (polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE]) materials for this purpose. Methods: This is a retrospective review of all neonates with CDH undergoing patch closure at our institution over 10 years. Meta-analysis was also performed combining our data with the published literature examining the effect of patch type on recurrence and small bowel obstruction (SBO). Results: Primary patch (13 SIS, 9 PTFE) repair was performed in 22 (26%) of 84 patients with CDH. Groups were comparable in terms of demographics, hospital stay, ventilator days, need for high frequency oscillation, age at surgery, and length of follow-up. Likewise, recurrence rate (SIS, 4 [31%]; PTFE, 3 [33%]; P, nonsignificant [NS]), incidence of postoperative SBO (SIS, 1 [7%] vs PTFE, 2 [22%]; P, NS), and mortality (SIS, 2 [15%] and PTFE, 2 [22%]; P, NS) were similar. Meta-analysis failed to find a significant difference between SIS and PTFE both for recurrence rate (odds ratio, 1.21 [0.51-2.84]; P, NS) and SBO (odds ratio, 1.47 [0.44-4.96]; P, NS). Conclusions: There was no difference in the incidence of CDH recurrence, SBO, or mortality post-CDH patch repair using either SIS or PTFE in our series. Meta-analysis failed to show any difference in recurrence and SBO rates between the 2 materials."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Large defects of the diaphragm have been associated with more severe pulmonary hypoplasia and poorer survival [1]; the past 2 decades have witnessed an improvement in medical management of patients with CDH with the use of gentle ventilation and delayed surgical repair, thus leading to improved survival rates in many centers [2]. Concomitantly, there has been a rise in the incidence of patch repairs [3,11] and also increased long-term morbidity [4]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to compare recurrence, small bowel obstruction (SBO), and mortality rates for CDH repair between an absorbable (Surgisis [SIS]; Cook Biotech, Inc, West Lafayette, IN) and a nonabsorbable polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Gore-Tex; W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Neward, DE) material at our institution."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not mention whether a review protocol exists or where it can be accessed.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "A retrospective chart review was performed for all neonates with Bochdalek CDH undergoing patch closure at our institution from January 2000 to December 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "All publications describing both absorbable (SIS) and nonabsorbable (PTFE) material for treatment of CDH were sought from the Cochrane Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. All studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards), and CINAHL (1982 onwards) and from hand-searching journals and conference proceedings."
- Reasoning: The authors describe all information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The terms CDH, patch, Surgisis, and PTFE were mapped to their MeSH terms and then combined. There were no language restrictions. Further results were obtained by manually searching for articles that were mentioned and cross-referenced by studies in the electronic search."
- Reasoning: The authors present their electronic search strategy.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Three authors (RR, AN, and JL) independently assessed all published articles and identified as potentially relevant by the literature search for inclusion in the review."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two authors (RR and AN) independently extracted data from the retrieved articles."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following data were extracted: demographics, side of the defect, need for high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), age at operation in days, type of patch (SIS or PTFE), number of days on mechanical ventilation, length of first hospital admission in days, mortality, recurrence, time to recurrence, occurrence of bowel obstruction, and time of follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Quality criteria used for study inclusion included (1) appropriate selection of comparison/control group; (2) control of factors such as selection bias, observation bias, and confounders; (3) completeness of follow-up; and (4) accurate outcome measurement."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed combining our data with the data from this study (Fig. 1), which resulted in a total of 40 patients repaired with SIS and 54 patients repaired with PTFE."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed combining our data with the data from this study (Fig. 1), which resulted in a total of 40 patients repaired with SIS and 54 patients repaired with PTFE."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "In the study period, 84 patients underwent CDH repair. Of these, 22 (26%) required a patch (13 SIS and 9 PTFE)."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "There were 4 recurrences (31%) in the SIS group compared with 3 (33%) in the PTFE group (P = .9, nonsignificant [NS]). Time to recurrence was 3, 7, 18, and 18 months for SIS and 2 months, 3 months, and 8 years for PTFE."
- Reasoning: The authors present simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis failed to find a significant difference between SIS and PTFE both for recurrence rate (odds ratio, 1.21 [0.51-2.84]; P, NS) and SBO (odds ratio, 1.47 [0.44-4.96]; P, NS)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not give results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In summary, we found no difference in complication rates between SIS and PTFE patch repairs for patients with CDH."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was originally designed to compare outcomes of randomized trials. It is possible to perform meta-analysis for observational studies, but the risk of contamination from bias and confounding is increased."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Clearly, at this stage, there is no ideal patch for CDH repair. It is possible that development of new absorbable materials, which become replaced with scar tissue more quickly, or further development of composite patches will improve the recurrence risk for patch repair of CDH."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The text does not describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
- Response: [No]

138. Ross 2015: The role of preformed silos in the management of infants with gastroschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "All outcomes were selected a priori."
Reasoning: The authors state that they selected all outcomes a priori, indicating a pre-determined design.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "The literature search, assessment for inclusion and data extraction were performed independently by three reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus."
Reasoning: The authors mention that three reviewers independently performed the literature search, assessment for inclusion, and data extraction, with disagreements resolved by consensus.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register from inception to July 2014 using the terms ‘gastroschisis’, ‘gastroschisis and silo’, ‘preformed silo’ and ‘silastic silo’."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases using specific search terms.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: No specific mention of grey literature.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as part of their inclusion criteria.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: No specific mention of a list of included and excluded studies.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "Characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "Overall the quality of evidence currently available in this field is poor; to date only one randomised controlled trial has been reported."
Reasoning: The authors comment on the overall quality of the evidence but do not provide a detailed assessment of the scientific quality of each included study.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "The results of this review and meta-analysis require careful interpretation in terms of implications for clinical practice."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the need for careful interpretation of their results due to the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "Data were extracted and entered into Review Manager (v5.1, The Cochrane Collaboration) and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model due to variation in study design and reporting."
Reasoning: The authors describe using a random effects model for their meta-analysis, which is appropriate given the variation in study design and reporting.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: No specific mention of publication bias.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: No specific mention of conflict of interest.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any conflicts of interest for the systematic review or the included studies.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "The role of preformed silos in the management of infants with gastroschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Abstract: Background The pre-formed silo (PFS) is increasingly used in the management of gastroschisis, but its benefits remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature comparing use of a PFS with alternate treatment strategies."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "The optimum surgical treatment of infants born with gastroschisis remains unclear."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of current knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "The aim of this study was to evaluate current evidence comparing the use of a PFS with alternate treatment strategies in infants with gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question, including the participants (infants with gastroschisis), intervention (PFS), and comparison (alternate treatment strategies).
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: No specific mention of a review protocol or registration.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Studies were selected for inclusion in the review if they reported comparative outcomes between infants treated with a PFS and infants treated with an alternate treatment strategy."
Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for studies to be included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register from inception to July 2014 using the terms ‘gastroschisis’, ‘gastroschisis and silo’, ‘preformed silo’ and ‘silastic silo’."
Reasoning: The authors describe the databases searched, the search terms used, and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register from inception to July 2014 using the terms ‘gastroschisis’, ‘gastroschisis and silo’, ‘preformed silo’ and ‘silastic silo’."
Reasoning: The authors provide the search terms and databases used, but do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Studies were selected for inclusion in the review if they reported comparative outcomes between infants treated with a PFS and infants treated with an alternate treatment strategy."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies for inclusion in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "The literature search, assessment for inclusion and data extraction were performed independently by three reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus."
Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process, including independent extraction by three reviewers and resolution of disagreements by consensus.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "The primary outcome measure was time on a ventilator. Secondary outcomes were number of infants never ventilated, time on parenteral nutrition (PN), time to achieve full enteral feeds, length of hospital stay, incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, number of unplanned re-operations, infectious complications, mortality and occurrence of ventral hernia following repair."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: No specific mention of risk of bias assessment.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "Summary statistics for continuous variables are reported as mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) and dichotomous variables as risk difference (RD) with 95 % CI in order to allow inclusion of studies with zero events."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "Data were extracted and entered into Review Manager (v5.1, The Cochrane Collaboration) and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model due to variation in study design and reporting."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for handling data and combining the results of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: No specific mention of risk of bias across studies.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across the studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: "We anticipated a large proportion of the data available would arise from retrospective cohort studies. Our a priori intention was therefore to perform subgroup analysis that included only studies reporting pre-planned management strategies for gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors describe their pre-specified plan for additional subgroup analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "One-thousand five-hundred and sixty-seven articles were identified using the specified search criteria and their abstracts reviewed. Following application against our inclusion criteria, 1440 were excluded on the basis of their abstract alone and the full text of 127 publications was scrutinised. One hundred and seven of these were subsequently excluded" [...] "The remaining 18 publications were included in this systematic review."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "Characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: No specific mention of risk of bias within studies.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "The primary outcome of number of days of ventilation was reported in 8 studies (641 patients). In the overall analysis there was no statistically significant difference in number of days of ventilation between infants treated with a PFS and alternate techniques."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies for each outcome, including summary data and effect estimates.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "Overall duration of PN was significantly longer in infants treated with a PFS [MD 6.38 days (1.3, 11.46); p = 0.01], whereas time to reach full enteral feeds and length of stay were similar between groups."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: No specific mention of risk of bias across studies.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across the studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: "In contrast to the overall findings, in the intention-to-treat subgroup analysis use of a PFS was associated with a shorter duration of ventilation."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their additional subgroup analyses.
Response: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "This review demonstrates that use of a PFS results in largely equivalent outcomes compared to alternate treatment approaches for infants with gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss their relevance.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "Overall the quality of evidence currently available in this field is poor; to date only one randomised controlled trial has been reported."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review, including the quality of the available evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "Further investigation is required to identify not only the optimal treatment pathway for infants with gastroschisis which will likely include a case by case decision algorithm, but also the tools by which to measure success."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: No specific mention of funding.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

139. Ruttenstock 2010: Systematic review and meta-analysis of enterocolitis after one-stage transanal pull-through procedure for Hirschsprung’s disease

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate postoperative incidence of HAEC following TERPT procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a design for their meta-analysis, but they do not provide a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "PubMed and Medline were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients who had undergone surgical correction of HD on transanal one-stage pull-through operation between 1998 and 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors mention two databases used for the literature search, but they do not provide the search strategy or keywords used.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "During the period between 1998 and 2009, 54 published articles reporting TERPT procedures for HD were identified in the world literature. Out of these 54 articles, 27 articles, identified as reporting entirely TERPT without additional laparotomy, laparoscopy or preoperative colostomy, formed the basis of our study."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included and excluded, but they do not provide a list of these studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "There were a total of 899 patients. Information about patient’s gender was reported in 760 (84.5%) patients. 563 (74.1%) patients were male and 197 (25.9%) patients were female. A male-to-female ratio of 2.8:1 was observed."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the number of patients and their gender.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Systematic review and meta-analysis of enterocolitis after one-stage transanal pull-through procedure for Hirschsprung’s disease"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose The transanal one-stage pull-through procedure (TERPT) has gained worldwide popularity over open and laparoscopic-assisted one-stage techniques in children with Hirschsprung’s disease (HD). It offers the advantages of avoiding laparotomy, laparoscopy, scars, abdominal contamination, and adhesions. However, enterocolitis associated with Hirschsprung’s disease (HAEC) still remains to be a potentially life-threatening complication after pull-through operation. The reported incidence of HAEC ranges from 4.6 to 54%. This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate postoperative incidence of HAEC following TERPT procedure."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a background, objectives, and a brief summary of the results, but it does not include information about data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, or a systematic review registration number.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Hirschsprung’s disease (HD) is the most common cause of intestinal obstruction in children [1]. Since the introduction of operative treatment of HD by Swenson [2], various operative procedures gradually evolved during the decades."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about Hirschsprung’s disease.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate postoperative incidence of HAEC following TERPT procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed, but they do not reference participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, or study design.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "PubMed and Medline were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients who had undergone surgical correction of HD on transanal one-stage pull-through operation between 1998 and 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the years considered and the type of studies included, but they do not provide other eligibility criteria or a rationale.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "PubMed and Medline were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients who had undergone surgical correction of HD on transanal one-stage pull-through operation between 1998 and 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases used for the search and the dates of coverage, but they do not mention the date of the last search or any contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search terms were ‘‘one-stage transanal pull-through’’, ‘‘transanal one-stage endorectal pull-through’’, ‘‘one-stage Soave pull-through’’, ‘‘single-stage transanal endorectal pull-through’’, ‘‘primary pull-through’’, or ‘‘Soave procedure’’."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used, but they do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "During the period between 1998 and 2009, 54 published articles reporting TERPT procedures for HD were identified in the world literature. Out of these 54 articles, 27 articles, identified as reporting entirely TERPT without additional laparotomy, laparoscopy or preoperative colostomy, formed the basis of our study."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies, but they do not provide details about screening or eligibility.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction or any processes for obtaining and confirming data.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Detailed information was recorded regarding the type of study, patient’s age and gender, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications with particular emphasis on the incidence and outcome of HAEC."
- Reasoning: The authors list some variables for which data were sought, but they do not define these variables or mention any assumptions or simplifications made.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "During the period between 1998 and 2009, 54 published articles reporting TERPT procedures for HD were identified in the world literature. Out of these 54 articles, 27 articles, identified as reporting entirely TERPT without additional laparotomy, laparoscopy or preoperative colostomy, formed the basis of our study."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened and included in the review, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "There were a total of 899 patients. Information about patient’s gender was reported in 760 (84.5%) patients. 563 (74.1%) patients were male and 197 (25.9%) patients were female. A male-to-female ratio of 2.8:1 was observed."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics for which data were extracted, but they do not provide the citations for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present the results of a meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not give results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This systematic review reveals that the incidence of postoperative and recurrent HAEC after TERPT procedure is remarkably lower than incidence rates of HAEC reported after other procedures, confirming TERPT as a safe operation with a low incidence of postoperative HAEC."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "This systematic review reveals that TERPT is a safe and less-invasive procedure with a low incidence of postoperative HAEC."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results, but they do not discuss the implications for future research.
- Answer: [No]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review or other support.
- Answer: [No]

140. Rynja 2011: Functional, cosmetic and psychosexual results in adult men who underwent hypospadias correction in childhood

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate postoperative incidence of HAEC following TERPT procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a design for their meta-analysis, but they do not provide a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "PubMed and Medline were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients who had undergone surgical correction of HD on transanal one-stage pull-through operation between 1998 and 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors mention two databases used for the literature search, but they do not provide the search strategy or keywords used.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "During the period between 1998 and 2009, 54 published articles reporting TERPT procedures for HD were identified in the world literature. Out of these 54 articles, 27 articles, identified as reporting entirely TERPT without additional laparotomy, laparoscopy or preoperative colostomy, formed the basis of our study."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included and excluded, but they do not provide a list of these studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "There were a total of 899 patients. Information about patient’s gender was reported in 760 (84.5%) patients. 563 (74.1%) patients were male and 197 (25.9%) patients were female. A male-to-female ratio of 2.8:1 was observed."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the number of patients and their gender.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Systematic review and meta-analysis of enterocolitis after one-stage transanal pull-through procedure for Hirschsprung’s disease"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose The transanal one-stage pull-through procedure (TERPT) has gained worldwide popularity over open and laparoscopic-assisted one-stage techniques in children with Hirschsprung’s disease (HD). It offers the advantages of avoiding laparotomy, laparoscopy, scars, abdominal contamination, and adhesions. However, enterocolitis associated with Hirschsprung’s disease (HAEC) still remains to be a potentially life-threatening complication after pull-through operation. The reported incidence of HAEC ranges from 4.6 to 54%. This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate postoperative incidence of HAEC following TERPT procedure."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, methods, and results, but it does not mention the study eligibility criteria, limitations, or systematic review registration number.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Hirschsprung’s disease (HD) is the most common cause of intestinal obstruction in children [1]. Since the introduction of operative treatment of HD by Swenson [2], various operative procedures gradually evolved during the decades."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about Hirschsprung’s disease.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate postoperative incidence of HAEC following TERPT procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed, but they do not reference the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "PubMed and Medline were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients who had undergone surgical correction of HD on transanal one-stage pull-through operation between 1998 and 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the years considered and the type of studies included, but they do not provide other eligibility criteria or a rationale.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "PubMed and Medline were searched for all studies that reported cases of patients who had undergone surgical correction of HD on transanal one-stage pull-through operation between 1998 and 2009."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases used and the dates of coverage, but they do not mention the date of the last search or any contact with study authors.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search terms were ‘‘one-stage transanal pull-through’’, ‘‘transanal one-stage endorectal pull-through’’, ‘‘one-stage Soave pull-through’’, ‘‘single-stage transanal endorectal pull-through’’, ‘‘primary pull-through’’, or ‘‘Soave procedure’’."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used, but they do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "During the period between 1998 and 2009, 54 published articles reporting TERPT procedures for HD were identified in the world literature. Out of these 54 articles, 27 articles, identified as reporting entirely TERPT without additional laparotomy, laparoscopy or preoperative colostomy, formed the basis of our study."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies, but they do not describe the screening or eligibility process.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction or any processes for obtaining and confirming data.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Detailed information was recorded regarding the type of study, patient’s age and gender, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications with particular emphasis on the incidence and outcome of HAEC."
- Reasoning: The authors list some of the variables for which data were sought, but they do not define these variables or mention any assumptions or simplifications made.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the methods of handling data and combining the results of the studies.
- Answer: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across the studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "During the period between 1998 and 2009, 54 published articles reporting TERPT procedures for HD were identified in the world literature. Out of these 54 articles, 27 articles, identified as reporting entirely TERPT without additional laparotomy, laparoscopy or preoperative colostomy, formed the basis of our study."
- Reasoning: The authors give the numbers of studies screened and included in the review, but they do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "There were a total of 899 patients. Information about patient’s gender was reported in 760 (84.5%) patients. 563 (74.1%) patients were male and 197 (25.9%) patients were female. A male-to-female ratio of 2.8:1 was observed."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the studies, such as the number of patients and their gender, but they do not provide the citations for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present any data on the risk of bias within the studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Postoperative HAEC occurred in 92 patients (10.2%), with an early onset of 2 weeks after surgery up to 18 months. Recurrent episodes of HAEC were reported in 18 patients (2%). Conservative treatment of HAEC was successful in 75 patients (81.5%)."
- Reasoning: The authors present some results of the individual studies, but they do not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present the results of a meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present any results of an assessment of risk of bias across the studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present any results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This systematic review reveals that the incidence of postoperative and recurrent HAEC after TERPT procedure is remarkably lower than incidence rates of HAEC reported after other procedures, confirming TERPT as a safe operation with a low incidence of postoperative HAEC."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss any limitations of the study.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "This systematic review reveals that the incidence of postoperative and recurrent HAEC after TERPT procedure is remarkably lower than incidence rates of HAEC reported after other procedures, confirming TERPT as a safe operation with a low incidence of postoperative HAEC."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

141. Saldaña 2013: Single-Incision Pediatric Endosurgery: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

16 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 93.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "Materials and Methods: We performed an electronic search in PubMed up to March 2012 with the terms ‘‘single AND incision OR site OR port OR trocar AND children’’ including related articles and obtained 197 articles. After applying our inclusion criteria, 78 articles were reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors describe a systematic search strategy and inclusion criteria, but there is no mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "We performed an electronic search in PubMed up to March 2012 with the terms ‘‘single AND incision OR site OR port OR trocar AND children’’ including related articles and obtained 197 articles."
Reasoning: The authors describe a search in PubMed, but do not mention any other databases or supplementary search strategies.
Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was included in the search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "We identified a total of 4212 patients operated on by SIPES. We separated types of operations by systems: gastrointestinal (n = 2888 patients), urological (n = 390 patients), gynecological (n = 27 patients), other abdominal (n = 874 patients), and thoracic (n = 33 patients) procedures."
Reasoning: The authors provide aggregated data on the participants and interventions of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the quality of the included studies was assessed.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the findings of the studies were combined.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether publication bias was assessed.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Single-Incision Pediatric Endosurgery: A Systematic Review"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Background: Single-incision pediatric endosurgery (SIPES) is defined as minimally invasive surgery performed through a unique incision in the abdomen, chest, or retroperitoneum. Several publications exist, but no previous systematic review has been made to evaluate the real benefits of this approach in terms of feasibility and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: We performed an electronic search in PubMed up to March 2012 with the terms ‘‘single AND incision OR site OR port OR trocar AND children’’ including related articles and obtained 197 articles. After applying our inclusion criteria, 78 articles were reviewed. Results: We identified prospective controlled trials (n = 1), case-control studies (n = 12), case series (n = 49), and case reports (n = 16). In total, 4212 patients had been operated on by SIPES and were separated by systems: gastrointestinal (n = 2888), urologic (n = 390), gynecologic (n = 27), other abdominal (n = 874), and thoracic (n = 33) procedures. The most common procedure was SIPES appendectomy, and a unique prospective controlled trial supports its safety and effectiveness. Technically demanding surgeries such as hepatojejunostomy and colonic surgeries were described. Multichannel ports and multiple ports, standard and articulated instruments, transparietal instruments, retraction sutures, and magnets were used. Operative times, length of stay, and complications similar to standard laparoscopic surgery were described. A low conversion rate (to a reduced port, standard laparoscopy and open procedures) was also mentioned. No comparable measure for pain and cosmesis assessment was used. Conclusions: A wide experience in SIPES and feasibility has already been described with good clinical outcomes and low rate of conversion. Appendectomy is the unique procedure in which SIPES has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. It is pending the execution of prospective controlled trials for other operations to demonstrate, with objective evidence, the real benefits of this less invasive approach."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Introduction: Single-incision endosurgery (SIES) is defined as minimally invasive surgery performed through a unique incision in the abdomen, chest, or any other virtual cavity in the human body. Several designations of this technique have been used with the terms ‘‘incision,’’ ‘‘port,’’ ‘‘site,’’ ‘‘trocar,’’ or ‘‘access,’’ depending on the surgeon’s preference. In the search for less invasive procedures, ever since the development of laparoscopic surgery and with the limitations and equipment dependence of Natural Orifice Translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTESÒ; American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [Oak Brook, IL] and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons [Los Angeles, CA]), this new approach through the umbilicus, a natural embrionary orifice, 1 was first reported in 1992 by Pelosi and Pelosi. 2 Quickly, the literature showed that SIES was a feasible and excellent cosmetic procedure pending the demonstration of its clinical and economic benefits with objective evidence."
Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The objective of this review is to show the initial published experience about SIPES to evaluate its real benefits in terms of feasibility and clinical outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors state the objective of the review, but do not explicitly refer to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether a review protocol exists or where it can be accessed.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Articles were considered eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) Operations were performed through a single incision. (2) The target population was children under 18 years of age. (3) Operations performed exclusively by pediatric surgeons. (4) Series larger than 100 patients were included for appendectomy operations. (5) Case reports, case series, and comparative and prospective randomized trials were included in other, nonappendectomy, operations because of their low incidence. (6) Articles should include age, operative technical aspects, and operative outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "We performed an electronic search in PubMed up to March 2012 with the following terms: ‘‘single’’ AND ‘‘incision’’ OR ‘‘site’’ OR ‘‘port’’ OR ‘‘trocar’’ AND ‘‘children.’’ Related articles were also reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors describe the database and search terms used, but do not mention any contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "We performed an electronic search in PubMed up to March 2012 with the following terms: ‘‘single’’ AND ‘‘incision’’ OR ‘‘site’’ OR ‘‘port’’ OR ‘‘trocar’’ AND ‘‘children.’’ Related articles were also reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used in PubMed, but do not provide information on any limits used.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "After applying our eligibility criteria, 78 articles were reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors mention applying eligibility criteria, but do not describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Data extracted from these articles were further analyzed for (1) technical aspects (port and instrumentation type) and (2) operative outcomes (operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, pain assessment, and complications)."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "After the PubMed search we identified 197 articles. After applying our eligibility criteria, we selected 78 articles to be included in this systematic review."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "We identified a total of 4212 patients operated on by SIPES. We separated types of operations by systems: gastrointestinal (n = 2888 patients), urological (n = 390 patients), gynecological (n = 27 patients), other abdominal (n = 874 patients), and thoracic (n = 33 patients) procedures."
Reasoning: The authors present aggregated data on the participants and interventions of the included studies, but do not provide the characteristics for each individual study or the citations.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the risk of bias within each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "In summary, we have made a systematic search of all the SIPES procedures reported in the literature, under our inclusion criteria, finding no objective evidence in clinical outcomes, except for appendectomies."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "Further analysis could not be performed because of the weak nature of the evidence in the majority of publications and some methodological defects of the literature reviewed."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review, including the weak nature of the evidence and methodological defects in the literature.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "From this systematic review we conclude: A wide experience in SIPES and its feasibility have already been described with good clinical outcomes and low rate of conversion. The majority of the SIPES procedures were performed in the ‘‘children’’ and ‘‘adolescents’’ groups. Appendectomy is the unique procedure in which SIPES has demonstrated to be safe and effective. Some SIPES procedures can be performed with the same standard instruments of a conventional three-port laparoscopy in children, meaning no additional cost. Cosmesis seems to be a self-evident benefit of SIPES, although there is no objective assessment of it among authors in the literature, and it must be carefully weighed against the possibility of affecting the safety of the procedure. Experienced endoscopic surgeons might consider SIPES as another surgical approach to treat certain pathologies; however, the execution of prospective controlled trials is pending to demonstrate, with objective evidence, the real benefits of this less invasive approach. Pediatric patients have particular characteristics that allow minimally invasive surgery to be performed safely with the use of hybrid assistance, like reduced ports, stab incisions, and percutaneous retraction sutures. Until the effectiveness of SIPES procedures is proven, we strongly recommend to keep on performing ‘‘minilaparoscopy’’ in our pediatric patients."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

143. Scholfield 2016: Laparoscopic Duhamel Procedure for Hirschsprung’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994–2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review but do not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications that analyzed outcomes for LD or OD pull-through procedures for HD. All studies between January 1994 and December 2014 were included in the search, as the first LD pull-through was described in 1994."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic search in PubMed, but do not mention any other databases or supplementary strategies.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished studies.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Data collected included study characteristics (author, journal, publication year, sample size, length of follow-up, and operative technique) and patient demographics (sex and age at surgery)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Their risk of bias was assessed and summarized (Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the risk of bias of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not explicitly state how the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "A cumulative meta-analysis was then performed, to compare the incidence of each outcome in patients who underwent the OD procedure with those who underwent the LD procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors describe performing a meta-analysis to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Disclosure Statement: No competing financial interests exist."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose that there are no competing financial interests.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic Duhamel Procedure for Hirschsprung’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Introduction: Since its introduction in 1956, the Duhamel procedure has been and remains one of the most widely performed for Hirschsprung’s disease (HD)" [...] ""
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Introduction: Hirschsprung’s disease(HD) has undergone a significant evolution in management since Ehrenpreis first recognized aganglionosis as its cause in 1946, as noted by Carpenter."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the existing knowledge about Hirschsprung’s disease.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "This study compared long-term outcomes for open Duhamel (OD) and laparoscopic Duhamel (LD) procedures for HD, to identify any added advantage of the laparoscopic technique."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, including participants (patients with Hirschsprung’s disease), interventions (OD and LD procedures), comparisons (between OD and LD), and outcomes (long-term outcomes).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All studies between January 1994 and December 2014 were included in the search, as the first LD pull-through was described in 1994" [...] "Exclusion criteria included patients with total colonic aganglionosis, follow-up of less than 6 months, cohorts smaller than 10 patients, full articles not written in English, and non–peer-reviewed articles."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications that analyzed outcomes for LD or OD pull-through procedures for HD. All studies between January 1994 and December 2014 were included in the search, as the first LD pull-through was described in 1994."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information source (PubMed) and the dates of coverage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Combinations of the key words ‘‘Hirschsprung disease,’’ ‘‘Duhamel,’’ ‘‘pull-through,’’ ‘‘lapa- roscopic,’’ ‘‘minimally invasive’’ and ‘‘open’’ were used."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used in PubMed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All studies assessing functional outcome for OD and/or LD procedures were analyzed for eligibility, including random- ized control trials and observational studies. Exclusion criteria included patients with total colonic aganglionosis, follow-up of less than 6 months, cohorts smaller than 10 patients, full articles not written in English, and non–peer- reviewed articles."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the method of data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data collected included study characteristics (author, journal, publication year, sample size, length of follow-up, and operative technique) and patient demographics (sex and age at surgery). Outcome parameters included incidence of enterocolitis, constipation, fecal incontinence or soiling, and further surgery, length of operation, length of hospital stay, and time taken to tolerate full oral feeds."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Their risk of bias was assessed and summarized (Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method, and mean differences (MDs) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "A cumulative meta-analysis was then performed, to compare the incidence of each outcome in patients who underwent the OD procedure with those who underwent the LD procedure."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial literature search identified 132 articles published from 1994 to 2014. Of these, 114 did not fulfill the inclusion criteria and were excluded (Fig. 1). Five further studies did not clearly define whether the Duhamel procedures were open or laparoscopic and were also excluded."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Eleven articles met our strict inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of articles included in the review, but do not present the characteristics for each study or provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Their risk of bias was assessed and summarized (Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05). The open group had a significantly greater incidence of soiling/ incontinence (11% versus 4%; P = .02) and further surgery (25% versus 14%; P = .005), longer hospital stay (9.79 versus 7.3 days; P < .00001), and time to oral feed (4.05 versus 3.27 days; P < .00001). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (3.83 versus 4.09 hours; P = .004). There was no significant difference in incidence of enterocolitis (15% versus 10%; P = .14) and constipation (23% versus 30%; P = .12)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each outcome, but do not provide these data for each individual study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, but do not provide confidence intervals or measures of consistency.
- Answer: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our meta-analysis proposes that LD pull-through is superior to OD pull-through for HD. The laparoscopic technique resulted in a significantly reduced incidence of postoperative soiling/incontinence and a reduced requirement for further surgery. Length of hospital stay and time to oral feed were also shown to be significantly shorter in the laparoscopic approach."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The results of our meta-analysis should be carefully interpreted. The following are unavoidable limitations: None of the studies included prospective data or randomized control trials. Data were not available for length of aganglionic segment, alongside other important outcomes such as anastomotic stricture and postoperative adhesions, which were not included in enough studies to be treated by meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Our meta-analysis proposes that LD pull-through is superior to OD pull-through for HD" [...] "However, the lack of large prospective studies remains a weakness, and randomized control trials with detailed follow-up and agreed definition of outcome parameters are required to overcome limitations in current studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

144. Sharp 2015: Treatment of Idiopathic Achalasia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 97.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The PRISMA format was used for the structure of this systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using the PRISMA format, but do not explicitly mention a protocol or 'a priori' design.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Independent extraction of data was performed by N.E.S using predefined data fields."
- Reasoning: The authors mention independent data extraction, but do not mention duplicate study selection or data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Studies were identified by searching the electronic database MEDLINE (OVID), and by hand search of reference lists for further relevant articles."
- Reasoning: The authors mention searching MEDLINE and hand searching reference lists, which indicates a comprehensive search.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Exclusion criteria: Included abstracts, care reports, small case series (less than or equal to five cases), studies limited to treatment modalities other than PD or HM, languages other than English, studies limited exclusively to syndromic achalasia, and animal or in vitro studies."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as a criterion.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "A total of seven studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All seven studies selected for the review were dedicated pediatric retrospective reviews (level III evidence) published in English between the years of 1980 and 2010."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the type of study and the years of publication.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Reliability of each study was determined based on the level of evidence of each study, study design, number of patients enrolled, and length of follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the reliability of each study based on several factors, which indicates an assessment of scientific quality.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The optimal treatment algorithm for pediatric achalasia remains unclear as adequate comparative data between PD and HM are lacking."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions reflect the limitations and quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "The most significant limitation with this systematic review is attributed to the heterogeneity of the study designs and treatment methods both within and between studies."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the heterogeneity of the studies and do not attempt to combine the findings inappropriately.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Funding: No funding was used. Conflict of Interest: None."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there was no funding used and no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Treatment of Idiopathic Achalasia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Background Achalasia is a rare idiopathic neuromuscular disorder of the esophagus, characterized as a syndrome of impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and decreased peristalsis of the esophageal body. Objective The primary objective is to determine the best first-line treatment for pediatric achalasia based on the consolidation of the current literature that compares outcomes after pneumatic dilatation (PD) versus surgical myotomy (Heller esophagomyotomy [HM]). Data Sources A systematic review of English articles using OVID was performed. Study Selection OVID was used to search for articles focusing on the treatment of pediatric esophageal achalasia with PD versus HM. Data Extraction Independent extraction of data was performed by N.E.S using predefined data fields. Data Synthesis Seven articles were included in the systematic review. Techniques of HM and PD varied widely. The best first-line treatment of pediatric achalasia was determined to be HM in two articles, PD in one article, and equal efficacy in one article. Three articles concluded that appropriate initial treatment was determined by the age of the child. Conclusion Adequate comparative data are lacking to determine the ideal treatment of pediatric achalasia. Appropriately designed randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to determine ideal treatment algorithms in pediatric achalasia."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, data sources, study selection, data extraction, data synthesis, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Achalasia is a rare neuromuscular disorder of the esophagus, characterized as a syndrome of impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and decreased peristalsis of the esophageal body. Although no cure exist that can reverse the underlying neuropathology, current treatments are aimed at symptom palliation."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about achalasia.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We intend to delineate the best initial treatment for achalasia and synthesize the current body of literature on outcomes from initial treatment of pediatric achalasia with pneumatic dilatation (PD) versus surgical Heller esophagomyotomy (HM)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, with reference to participants (children with achalasia), interventions (PD and HM), comparisons (PD versus HM), and outcomes (best initial treatment).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Type of studies: Systematic reviews and retrospective reviews were included. There were no prospective randomized trials identified in the pediatric esophageal achalasia literature. Types of participants: Patients younger than 21 years. Types of intervention: PD versus HM. Types of outcomes measures: Primary outcome measure was the recommended first-line treatment of pediatric achalasia. Secondary outcome measures included type of study, level of evidence of study, length of study, diagnostic methods, number of patients, demographic information (gender and age), symptomatology, length of symptoms, procedural details, recurrence, need for further treatment, complications, and follow-up length. Exclusion criteria: Included abstracts, care reports, small case series (less than or equal to five cases), studies limited to treatment modalities other than PD or HM, languages other than English, studies limited exclusively to syndromic achalasia, and animal or in vitro studies."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Studies were identified by searching the electronic database MEDLINE (OVID), and by hand search of reference lists for further relevant articles. The last search was run on May 4, 2014."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search and the date of the last search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Full abstracts of articles obtained by the OVID search (►Table 1) were reviewed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly delineated before the start of the review process."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using OVID for the search, but do not provide the full electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Full abstracts of articles obtained by the OVID search (►Table 1) were reviewed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly delineated before the start of the review process. Full articles were then reviewed and screened. Examination of references was performed and additional articles were obtained for inclusion in the discussion."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "We developed data sheet (Microsoft Excel 2000 9.0.6926 SP-3, Microsoft Corporation) for our outcome measures listed earlier."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Primary and secondary outcomes measures listed earlier were extracted from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors mention extracting primary and secondary outcome measures from each study, but do not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Reliability of each study was determined based on the level of evidence of each study, study design, number of patients enrolled, and length of follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "The most significant limitation with this systematic review is attributed to the heterogeneity of the study designs and treatment methods both within and between studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the heterogeneity of the studies and do not attempt to combine the results inappropriately.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "The heterogeneity of the study designs and treatment methods results in an inherent bias resulting in the inability to perform an accurate meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the risk of bias across studies due to the heterogeneity of the study designs and treatment methods.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The search of OVID database provided 103 citations (►Fig. 1). Of the remaining articles, 81 were discarded after reviewing the abstracts as they either met exclusion criteria or failed to meet full inclusion criteria. The full texts of the remaining articles were examined. Fourteen articles were eliminated, as their focus was on PD or surgical interventions alone. A total of seven studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "All seven studies selected for the review were dedicated pediatric retrospective reviews (level III evidence) published in English between the years of 1980 and 2010. Mean study length was 19.3  8.3 years (range, 6–30 years). Follow-up varied from 5.5 months to 22.9 years."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for which data were extracted for each study, but do not provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Reliability of each study was determined based on the level of evidence of each study, study design, number of patients enrolled, and length of follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The best first-line treatment of pediatric achalasia was determined to be HM in two articles, PD in one article, and equal efficacy in one article. Three articles concluded that appropriate initial treatment was determined by the age of the child."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data for each intervention group, but do not provide effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not perform a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "The heterogeneity of the study designs and treatment methods results in an inherent bias resulting in the inability to perform an accurate meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors present results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The optimal treatment algorithm for pediatric achalasia remains unclear as adequate comparative data between PD and HM are lacking. Both adult and pediatric literatures suggest that younger age may contribute to poor response to PD."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The most significant limitation with this systematic review is attributed to the heterogeneity of the study designs and treatment methods both within and between studies."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The optimal treatment algorithm for pediatric achalasia remains unclear as adequate comparative data between PD and HM are lacking. Quality randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to determine an ideal treatment algorithm."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Funding: No funding was used."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

145. Shawyer 2014: The management of postoperative reflux in congenital esophageal atresia–tracheoesophageal fistula: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 1 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of anti-reflux medication use in postoperative EA-TEF patients, and the impact of routine anti-reflux medication on postoperative GER and its associated complications."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research question and objectives.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Title and abstract screening was carried out independently and in duplicate (AS and JD). Disagreements were settled by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A comprehensive search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, CINHAL, EMBASE/OVID, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane library) electronic databases."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Gray literature was searched in Papers first, Proceedings first and Pro Quest electronic databases (key word search) for the same time period."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they searched for grey literature.
- Answer: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "There were 2,910 potential citations identified through database searches. Of these, 25 papers (1,663 eligible patients) were eligible for inclusion and final analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened and included, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Study characteristics are presented in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Quality appraisal was done using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the use of a quality assessment tool for the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The majority (20/25, 80 %) scored ‘‘low’’ or ‘‘very low’’ on MINORS."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Descriptive analyses including counts, percentages, means and standard deviations where appropriate were employed."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank David Kanters and Jorge Zequeira for their assistance with data management, and Janet Rowe for her assistance with editing the manuscript."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge assistance received but do not explicitly state any conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "The management of postoperative reflux in congenital esophageal atresia–tracheoesophageal fistula: a systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Purpose Esophageal atresia (EA), with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF), is associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (GER). We performed a systematic review of the literature regarding routine anti-reflux medication post EA-TEF repair and its impact on postoperative GER and associated complications."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Esophageal atresia (EA) with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) is often associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (GER)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of anti-reflux medication use in postoperative EA-TEF patients, and the impact of routine anti-reflux medication on postoperative GER and its associated complications."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question and objectives.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) published between inception of database and November 2012, (2) primary diagnosis of EA with or without TEF, (3) secondary diagnosis of postoperative GER, (4) primary treatment for GER with anti-reflux medications (not limited by type of agent, dose or mode of delivery)."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A comprehensive search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, CINHAL, EMBASE/OVID, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane library) electronic databases."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Initially identified studies were then filtered on the basis of predetermined relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords (esophageal atresia, tracheoesophageal fistula, gastroesophageal reflux)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some details of the search strategy but do not provide a full electronic search strategy for any database.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Title and abstract screening was carried out independently and in duplicate (AS and JD). Disagreements were settled by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Data abstraction was performed in duplicate (AS, JD) and verified for accuracy and quality via a pre-piloted standardized data abstraction form; discrepancies were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data collection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcome of the success of prophylactic reflux medication on decreasing rates of GER was analyzed based on a reported postoperative decrease in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, decrease in respiratory symptoms or demonstrable weight gain."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the primary outcome variable for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "We performed an appraisal of the quality of reporting of the included studies in duplicate (AS and JP). We used the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Descriptive analyses including counts, percentages, means and standard deviations where appropriate were employed."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Descriptive analyses including counts, percentages, means and standard deviations where appropriate were employed."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "There were 2,910 potential citations identified through database searches. Of these, 25 papers (1,663 eligible patients) were eligible for inclusion and final analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Study characteristics are presented in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Quality appraisal was done using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS)."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In summary, the published literature regarding empiric anti-reflux therapy in infants with EA-TEF is of a low level of evidence and suffers from a lack of standardization."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss the strength of the evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The majority of papers in this review were small, retrospective unmatched cohort studies based on single-center experiences and prone to the bias that accompanies small observational studies."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Collaboration with other centers and experts in the field to develop databases with standardized reporting forms would improve the data collection and subsequent analysis of the outcomes of these patients."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

146. Shawyer 2015: Laparoscopic versus open repair of recto-bladderneck and recto-prostatic anorectal malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

34 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "We performed a systematic review of the effect of LAARP on postoperative mucosal prolapse and defecation dysfunction." "Additionally, we sought to describe differences in operative times, postoperative anal stenosis, anorectal manometry and urologic outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors clearly stated the research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Title and abstract screening was conducted independently and in duplicate (AS and ML). Disagreements were settled through discussion and consensus." "Data abstraction was performed in duplicate (AS and ML) and verified for accuracy and quality via a pre-piloted standardized data abstraction form; discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus."
Reasoning: The authors used a duplicate process for study selection and data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A comprehensive search was conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/OVID and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) electronic databases from 2000 to March 2014." "Grey literature was searched in PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst and ProQuest electronic databases (keyword search). The bibliographies of relevant articles and reviews were manually searched to title exhaustion."
Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and supplemented their search with grey literature and manual bibliography searches.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: "Grey literature was searched in PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst and ProQuest electronic databases (keyword search)."
Reasoning: The authors included grey literature in their search strategy.
Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "Of these, seven studies (N = 187) were eligible for inclusion and final analysis." "Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified; the remainder were retrospective observational studies."
Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a detailed or aggregated form.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "We appraised the quality of reporting of the included studies in duplicate (AS and ML), with discrepancies resolved by discussion and consensus. We used the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS)."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the quality of the included studies using a recognized tool.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "However, the studies are of moderate quality, samples sizes are small and there are multiple sources of heterogeneity."
Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Available outcome data were pooled for each outcome to produce an overall estimate of treatment effect."
Reasoning: The authors used appropriate methods to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Two studies reported their funding source [38, 39]. No studies reported on conflict of interest."
Reasoning: The authors reported on the funding sources of some studies but did not report on conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Laparoscopic versus open repair of recto-bladderneck and recto-prostatic anorectal malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Objective The laparoscopically-assisted anorectal pull-through (LAARP) for recto-bladderneck and recto-prostatic anorectal malformations (RB/RP-ARMs) is believed to improve patient outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the effect of LAARP on postoperative mucosal prolapse and defecation dysfunction. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature was performed (2000–2014). Full-text screening, data abstraction and quality appraisal were conducted in duplicate. Included studies reported a primary diagnosis of RB/RP-ARM and compared LAARP versus open repair (OPEN). Results From 3681 retrieved articles, 7 studies enrolling 187 patients were analyzed. One was a randomized control trial, 6 were retrospective observational studies, and all were single-centre. The majority were of poor-moderate quality (MINORS scores: mean 16.42 (SD 2.225) out of 24). Mucosal prolapse was not significantly different after LAARP versus OPEN (p = 0.18). Defecation outcomes were inconsistently reported but were no different between LAARP and OPEN for either children [3 years old (p = 0.84), or all ages combined (p = 0.11). Conclusion We found no significant difference in rates of mucosal prolapse or defecation scores for LAARP compared to OPEN for children with RB/RP-ARMs. However, studies are small and of poor-moderate quality and results are heterogeneous. Comprehensive, standardized, reliable reporting is necessary to guide practice and inform post-operative guidelines. Level of evidence 1c."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Anorectal malformations (ARMs) occur in one in 5,000 newborns and comprise a wide spectrum of anomalies [1]. ARMs were previously designated ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘low’’ but are now classified according to the anatomic location of the fistula (e.g., in males, recto-prostatic or bladder neck versus perineal or recto-bulbar) [2–4]. Recto-bladderneck and recto-prostatic ARM (RB/RP-ARM) patients often experience a lifetime struggle with constipation, soiling or incontinence, in particular children with bladder neck fistulas [5]. Bowel management strategies have been developed and must be implemented at the time of repair, and maintained to improve outcomes [6]."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about the topic.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "We conducted a systematic review to assess the impact of a laparoscopic repair on rates of mucosal prolapse and defecation dysfunction of male children born with RB/RP-ARMs (i.e., require an abdominal approach to their repair, either through laparoscopy or laparotomy). Additionally, we sought to describe differences in operative times, postoperative anal stenosis, anorectal manometry and urologic outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, referencing participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) primary diagnosis of RB/RP-ARM; (2) male patients less than 18 years of age at the time of definitive repair of their RB/RP-ARM; (3) interventions include LAARP versus OPEN for ligation of the fistula and mobilization of the rectum; (4) and publication date 2010–2014 (since the publication of Georgeson’s LAARP) [10]. Studies reporting outcomes were admissible. Exclusion criteria included case reports, case series with \5 eligible patients, review articles and reports focused solely on surgical technique. We had no language restrictions."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A comprehensive search was conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/OVID and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) electronic databases from 2000 to March 2014. Initially identified studies were then filtered on the basis of predetermined relevant medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and key words (imperforate anus, anorectal malformation, bladder neck, recto-vesical or recto-prostatic fistula, laparoscopy, minimally invasive surgery or minimal access surgery). Grey literature was searched in PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst and ProQuest electronic databases (keyword search). The bibliographies of relevant articles and reviews were manually searched to title exhaustion."
Reasoning: The authors describe all the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not present a full electronic search strategy for any database.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Title and abstract screening was conducted independently and in duplicate (AS and ML). Disagreements were settled through discussion and consensus."
Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Data abstraction was performed in duplicate (AS and ML) and verified for accuracy and quality via a pre-piloted standardized data abstraction form; discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Mucosal prolapse is common after repair of ARMs and can lead to bleeding and excoriation and may interfere with continence [19]. It is treated by excision and revision of the anorectal anastomosis to reduce mucosa soiling and improve sensation in the neoanal canal [19]. This was measured as present/absent, based on clinical judgment by the surgeon."
Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "We appraised the quality of reporting of the included studies in duplicate (AS and ML), with discrepancies resolved by discussion and consensus. We used the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: "For dichotomous variables, odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. We converted continuous data to the mean difference and calculated an overall weighted mean difference (with 95 % CI)."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Available outcome data were pooled for each outcome to produce an overall estimate of treatment effect."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "We identified 3,681 potential citations through database searches. This resulted in 97 studies; hand-searching bibliographies of these papers resulted in an additional 15 articles for full text screening. Of these, seven studies (N = 187) were eligible for inclusion and final analysis."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "Of these, seven studies (N = 187) were eligible for inclusion and final analysis." "Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified; the remainder were retrospective observational studies."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide citations.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: "We appraised the quality of reporting of the included studies in duplicate (AS and ML), with discrepancies resolved by discussion and consensus. We used the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS)."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: "The pooled rate of mucosal prolapse and need for operative revision was not significantly different between LAARP compared to OPEN (p = 0.18)." "There was no significant difference to defecation outcomes based on operative technique (p = 0.11)."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "The pooled rate of mucosal prolapse and need for operative revision was not significantly different between LAARP compared to OPEN (p = 0.18)." "There was no significant difference to defecation outcomes based on operative technique (p = 0.11)."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not give results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "We found no significant difference in rates of mucosal prolapse or defecation scores for LAARP compared to OPEN for children with RB/RP-ARMs. However, studies are small and of poor-moderate quality and results are heterogeneous."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "The majority of studies included in this review were small, retrospective cohort studies based on single centre experiences and prone to the bias that accompanies small observational studies." "The patients were heterogeneous (and part of a larger heterogeneous population including all ARMs). Thus, obtaining RB/RP-ARM-specific information was challenging."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Standardized, reliable reporting is necessary for the development of postoperative treatment guidelines. Large, multi-centre databases will facilitate prospective data gathering and collaboration will assist with higher-quality research."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No specific quotes available.
Reasoning: The authors did not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

147. Shen 2015: Laparoscopic versus open surgery in children with choledochal cysts: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Objective To compare the safety and efficacy between laparoscopic and open cyst excision with hepaticojejunostomy for children with choledochal cysts using meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated their research objective at the beginning of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any process of duplicate study selection or data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library updated to November 2014, to identify all related published studies comparing the laparoscopic and the open choledochal cyst excision with hepaticojejunostomy."
- Reasoning: The authors described their search strategy and the databases they used.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 1: Characteristics and quality assessment of the included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The quality of the literature was assessed independently by two authors (Huo-Jian Shen and Ming Xu) using the 9-star Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [7]."
- Reasoning: The authors used a recognized tool to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In conclusion, laparoscopic cyst excision with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy is a safe and effective treatment option for choledochal cysts in children with comparable outcomes to open resection."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions are based on the results of the included studies, but they do not explicitly state how the quality of the studies influenced their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Statistical analysis of dichotomous variables was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the summary statistic, while continuous variables were analyzed using the weighted mean difference (MD)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the statistical methods they used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic versus open surgery in children with choledochal cysts: a meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Objective To compare the safety and efficacy between laparoscopic and open cyst excision with hepaticojejunostomy for children with choledochal cysts using meta-analysis. Methods Studies comparing the laparoscopic and the open choledochal cyst excision that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library) up to November 2014. The proceedings of relevant congress were also searched. The outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to food intake, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay. Outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.2. Results Seven retrospective studies were finally included, involving a total of 1016 patients, of whom, 408 cases underwent laparoscopic cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (LH) and 608 cases underwent open cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OH). In LH group compared with OH group, the operative time was longer (MD = 59.11, 95 % CI 27.61–90.61, P = 0.0002), while the length of postoperative hospital stay was less (MD = -2.01, 95 % CI -2.49 to -1.54, P \ 0.00001), the intraoperative blood loss was lower (MD = -37.14, 95 % CI -66.69 to -7.60, P = 0.01) and time to food intake was less (MD = -1.14, 95 % CI -1.61 to -0.67, P = 0.01). The rate of postoperative morbidity was more in the OH group, but there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.13–2.06, P = 0.35). Conclusion Laparoscopic surgery is a feasible, safe treatment of choledochal cyst with less postoperative morbidity, a shorter length of stay and a lower blood loss when compared with open approach. With the improvement of laparoscopic techniques and deftness of surgeons practice, laparoscopic surgery may become the first choice procedure for choledochal cyst."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study, including the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Choledochal cysts are rare congenital cystic dilations of the biliary tree that present primarily in female infants and young children and are more prevalent in East Asian populations [1, 2]. The exact etiology of choledochal cysts is unknown, but anomalous pancreaticobiliary duct union (APBDU) is seen in 30–70 % of all choledochal cysts where the common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct junction occurs outside the duodenum, allowing reflux of pancreatic fluid into the biliary tree [3]. Besides the classic triad of abdominal pain, right upper quadrant mass and obstructive jaundice, choledochal cysts can be associated with serious complications such as cholangitis, pancreatitis, cholelithiasis and have a high risk in developing cholangiocarcinoma [4]. Thus, total cyst excision followed by Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction is recommended for most patients with choledochal cysts whenever possible [5]. Laparoscopic excision of choledochal cysts has increasingly gained acceptance and applicability since its first description by Farello [6]. The potential advantages of LH include shorter recovery time and improved cosmesis. However, its safety remains a major concern compared with the conventional open surgery. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the clinical safety and effectiveness of LH with OH."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about the topic.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Objective To compare the safety and efficacy between laparoscopic and open cyst excision with hepaticojejunostomy for children with choledochal cysts using meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the objective of the review, which includes the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide any registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "The studies that published up to and including November 2014 were considered eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) study reported on at least one of the outcome measures mentioned below: operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to food intake, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay; (2) population: children younger than 18 years with choledochal cysts; (3) intervention: laparoscopic cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (LH) versus open cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OH)."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library updated to November 2014, to identify all related published studies comparing the laparoscopic and the open choledochal cyst excision with hepaticojejunostomy."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources they used in their search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The keywords used in the search were as follows: laparoscopic, open, hepaticojejunostomy, choledochal cysts. The language was restricted to English only."
- Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy, including the keywords used and the language restriction.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The studies that published up to and including November 2014 were considered eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) study reported on at least one of the outcome measures mentioned below: operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to food intake, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay; (2) population: children younger than 18 years with choledochal cysts; (3) intervention: laparoscopic cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (LH) versus open cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OH)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies based on specific inclusion criteria.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two reviewers (Huo-Jian Shen and Ming Xu) abstracted relevant information from each eligible article using a standardized form independently."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process, including the use of two independent reviewers.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Information about the characteristics of the study population, authors, publication year, study period, country, sample size, interventions, outcomes details of the surgical techniques used, and relevant outcomes were recorded."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The quality of the literature was assessed independently by two authors (Huo-Jian Shen and Ming Xu) using the 9-star Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [7]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Statistical analysis of dichotomous variables was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the summary statistic, while continuous variables were analyzed using the weighted mean difference (MD)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using the Mantel–Haenszel Chi-squared test, with its significance set at P \ 0.1, and the extent of inconsistency was assessed by the I2 statistic [8]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "According to the search strategy described previously, a total of 162 citations were obtained for review of title and abstract (Fig. 1). Of the 162 citations, 14 duplicates were removed by the Endnote X5 software, and 131 irrelevant studies were excluded through scanning titles and abstracts. Reviewers had perfect agreement in selecting the 7 studies [9–15] considered to be suitable for the final meta-analysis using the stated eligibility criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 1: Characteristics and quality assessment of the included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics of each included study in a table.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The quality of the literature was assessed independently by two authors (Huo-Jian Shen and Ming Xu) using the 9-star Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [7]."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Results Seven retrospective studies were finally included, involving a total of 1016 patients, of whom, 408 cases underwent laparoscopic cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (LH) and 608 cases underwent open cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OH). In LH group compared with OH group, the operative time was longer (MD = 59.11, 95 % CI 27.61–90.61, P = 0.0002), while the length of postoperative hospital stay was less (MD = -2.01, 95 % CI -2.49 to -1.54, P \ 0.00001), the intraoperative blood loss was lower (MD = -37.14, 95 % CI -66.69 to -7.60, P = 0.01) and time to food intake was less (MD = -1.14, 95 % CI -1.61 to -0.67, P = 0.01). The rate of postoperative morbidity was more in the OH group, but there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.13–2.06, P = 0.35)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group for all outcomes considered.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "In LH group compared with OH group, the operative time was longer (MD = 59.11, 95 % CI 27.61–90.61, P = 0.0002), while the length of postoperative hospital stay was less (MD = -2.01, 95 % CI -2.49 to -1.54, P \ 0.00001), the intraoperative blood loss was lower (MD = -37.14, 95 % CI -66.69 to -7.60, P = 0.01) and time to food intake was less (MD = -1.14, 95 % CI -1.61 to -0.67, P = 0.01). The rate of postoperative morbidity was more in the OH group, but there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.13–2.06, P = 0.35)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, laparoscopic cyst excision with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy is a safe and effective treatment option for choledochal cysts in children with comparable outcomes to open resection. LH was associated with a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay and a lower blood loss when compared with open resection."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "This meta-analysis has some limitations that should be taken into account when considering the results. First, there are no randomized trials comparing the two procedures. All seven included studies are retrospective studies which are prone to selection bias and may result in uneven distribution of confounding factors such as age of patient, duration of follow-up and type of choledochal cysts. Second, except one study [14], the others did not compare outcomes between the laparoscopic and open group within the same study period, the main drawback in drawing conclusions from different study period is that factors other than the surgical approach, such as changes in perioperative practices or improved equipment, may introduce bias. Third, in some studies, the number of patients was too small, leading to low-power analyses. Caution should be given in the interpretation and generalization of this meta-analysis as the included study numbers are not high and also the overall quantity of these studies is insufficient. At last, heterogeneity among the studies is high."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, laparoscopic cyst excision with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy is a safe and effective treatment option for choledochal cysts in children with comparable outcomes to open resection. LH was associated with a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay and a lower blood loss when compared with open resection. With more refinement in equipment and technique, it will be possible to consider LH as a gold standard for treatment of pediatric choledochal cysts."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

148. Siddiqui 2011: A meta-analysis of outcomes after open and laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The objective of this study is to meta-analyse the published literature comparing outcomes after open (ONF) versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and objective of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Each article was critically reviewed by two researchers using a double extraction method for eligibility in our review."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two researchers independently reviewed each article.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All comparative studies investigating LNF versus ONF for GORD in children between January 1993 and October 2009 were identified. We searched the MEDLINE, EM- BASE and CINAHL available through the National Library of Health website, the Cochrane library and PubMed dat- abases available online."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Six studies [20, 26, 29–32] were included in our study according to our inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the studies included but do not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Characteristics of each trial are given in Table 2."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The methodological quality of included trials is explained comprehensively in Table 3 [33, 34]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table assessing the methodological quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In summary, LNF is superior to ONF in relation to feeding, hospital stay and morbidity and is comparable to ONF in terms of operative time and recurrence."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions are based on the results of the included studies, but they do not explicitly state how the quality of the studies influenced their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Statistical analyses were performed using Comprehen- sive Meta-Analysis 2006 Ò for Windows XP."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest None."
- Reasoning: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "A meta-analysis of outcomes after open and laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract The objective of this study is to meta-analyse the published literature comparing outcomes after open (ONF) versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a summary of the study, but it does not include all the required elements such as data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, and systematic review registration number.
- Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) may cause symptoms in up to 7% of children [1]. In older children, symptoms may present as heartburn or dysphagia [1]. In neonates and infants, failure to thrive and respiratory complications may ensue [2, 3]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The objective of this study is to meta-analyse the published literature comparing outcomes after open (ONF) versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, but they do not explicitly mention the PICOS components.
- Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "All comparative studies investigating LNF versus ONF for GORD in children between January 1993 and October 2009 were identified."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched the MEDLINE, EM- BASE and CINAHL available through the National Library of Health website, the Cochrane library and PubMed dat- abases available online."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The text words ‘‘minimally inva- sive’’, ‘‘keyhole surgery’’, ‘‘heartburn’’, ‘‘reflux disease’’ and ‘‘children’’ were used in combination with the medical subject headings ‘‘laparoscopy’’, ‘‘fundoplication’’ and ‘‘gastro-oesophageal reflux’’."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used, but it is not clear if it is complete enough to be repeated.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Each article was critically reviewed by two researchers using a double extraction method for eligibility in our review."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Each article was critically reviewed by two researchers using a double extraction method for eligibility in our review."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Outcome variables were operative time, hospital stay, feed time, morbidity and recurrence."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "The methodological quality of included trials is explained comprehensively in Table 3 [33, 34]."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "For continu- ous data (operation time, hospital stay and time to feeding), Hedges g statistic was used for the calculation of stan- dardized mean differences (SMDs). Binary data (morbidity and recurrence) were summarized as risk ratios (RR)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Statistical analyses were performed using Comprehen- sive Meta-Analysis 2006 Ò for Windows XP."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Six studies [20, 26, 29–32] were included in our study according to our inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included in the review, but they do not provide the number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, or excluded, nor do they provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Characteristics of each trial are given in Table 2."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of each included study.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "The methodological quality of included trials is explained comprehensively in Table 3 [33, 34]."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each included study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Five studies [20, 26, 29, 31, 32] contributed to a summative outcome. There was significant heterogeneity among trials (Q = 63.53, df = 4, p \ 0.0001, I2 = 93.7); therefore the fixed effects model was inappropriate. There was no sig- nificant difference between LNF and ONF [random effects model: SMD = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.69, 0.60), z = -0.94, p = 0.35; Fig. 2]."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies, including summary data, effect estimates, and confidence intervals, and they provide a forest plot.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "A combined analysis of five trials [20, 26, 29, 30, 32] discussed length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity among trials (Q = 21.33, df = 4, p \ 0.0001, I2 = 81.2). Patients stayed in hospital for less time after undergoing LNF compared with ONF [random effects model: SMD = 0.93, 95% CI (0.41, 1.44), z = 3.53, p \ 0.01; Fig. 3]."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In summary, LNF is superior to ONF in relation to feeding, hospital stay and morbidity and is comparable to ONF in terms of operative time and recurrence."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes of hospital stay, operative time and feeds. This may relate to local protocols, observer bias and being on different points of the learning curve."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication in children may be considered a safe and effective alternative to open surgery; however, careful case selection is required."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

149. Siminas 2015: Current Surgical Management of Pediatric Idiopathic Constipation

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 NA 0 1


LLM response

21 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Against this background, the authors undertook a systematic review of all published studies to critically appraise outcomes and explore the defining role of surgery for pediatric IC."
- Reasoning: The authors state their research question and inclusion criteria, but do not mention a protocol or ethics approval.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the process of study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Electronic searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Libraries were conducted for English language articles only without calendar or year limits."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their search strategy, including the databases used and the search terms.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "Abstracts and congress proceedings were excluded as they were considered incomplete studies."
- Reasoning: The authors explicitly state that they excluded certain types of grey literature.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "All studies were classified as full peer-review articles (with 3 or more patients), with outcome data clearly reported by authors."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide detailed information about the participants, interventions, and outcomes of each study.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Regarding validity assessment, the methodological quality of selected studies was assessed according to hierarchies of evidence and using a critical appraisal checklist."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their process for assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Surgical management and outcome(s) for pediatric IC are based on low-quality evidence."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the low quality of the evidence and take this into account in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any methods for combining the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Current Surgical Management of Pediatric Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review of Published Studies"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Objective: Surgery for pediatric idiopathic constipation (IC) is undertaken after failure of bowel management programs" [...] "Conclusions: Surgical management and outcome(s) for pediatric IC are based on low-quality evidence."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Children with refractory idiopathic constipation (IC)/soiling, resistant to intensive medical management and bowel training programs, are a major challenge for pediatric surgeons worldwide."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of the existing challenges in managing pediatric IC.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Against this background, the authors undertook a systematic review of all published studies to critically appraise outcomes and explore the defining role of surgery for pediatric IC."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, but do not explicitly reference the PICOS elements.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies included (1) peer-review publications with 3 or more patients, and (2) clinical outcomes defined by authors."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Electronic searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Libraries were conducted for English language articles only without calendar or year limits."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Search terms included—constipation AND (functional OR idiopathic) AND (child OR pediatric) AND surgery NOT (Hirschsprung’s OR Hirschsprung) NOT (Anorectal AND Malformation) NOT (Spina AND Bifida)."
- Reasoning: The authors present their search strategy, including the search terms used.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process of data extraction.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not list or define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Regarding validity assessment, the methodological quality of selected studies was assessed according to hierarchies of evidence and using a critical appraisal checklist."
- Reasoning: The authors describe their method for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The literature search after applying filters with application of inclusion/exclusion criteria retrieved 45 complete studies for final analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors give the number of studies included in the review, but do not provide numbers of studies screened or assessed for eligibility, reasons for exclusions, or a flow diagram.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Forty-five reports (1157 patients) met full inclusion criteria. Only 2 papers were randomized controlled trials."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide detailed information for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present summary data or effect estimates for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Surgical management and outcome(s) for pediatric IC are based on low-quality evidence. No single operation was considered ‘‘best practice.’’"
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "This systematic review has shown that the vast majority of available data reporting outcomes on the surgical treatment of IC in childhood are based on low quality evidence."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review, including the low quality of the available evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "There is a crucial need for pediatric surgeons to develop better evidence base care pathways to manage IC."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

150. Sklar 2014: Laparoscopic Versus Open Reduction of Intussusception in Children: A Retrospective Review and Meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "There were two main objectives for this study. First, we aimed to retrospectively review our institution’s experience with the surgical treatment of intussusception, comparing the LAP and open approaches. Second, and most importantly, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, combining our data with existing literature, in order to identify any differences in outcome measures across all identified comparative studies."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research objectives and methods before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using the MeSH terms ‘‘intussusception,’’ ‘‘pediatric,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopic.’’"
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two researchers independently searched the databases, indicating duplicate study selection.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using the MeSH terms ‘‘intussusception,’’ ‘‘pediatric,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopic.’’"
- Reasoning: The authors mention the databases and search terms used, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "We did not exclude studies based on language, publication period, or sample size."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as a criterion.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Our electronic search identified 40 studies. After applying our exclusion criteria we excluded 35 studies, leaving five retrospective cohort studies for analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies identified and included, but do not provide a list of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "We applied the MINORS criteria to each study (Table 2) and found that all studies were fair to moderate in quality."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the quality of the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each author independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria for nonrandomized studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using a specific tool to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Our results should be interpreted with caution, as there are some methodological limitations in our study."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study and caution about the interpretation of the results.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "We performed statistical analysis using the Med Calc statistical software. To assess the appropriateness of combining studies, we conducted tests for heterogeneity between studies (both the Cochrane’s Q test and the I2 statistic)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Disclosure Statement: No competing financial interests exist."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a statement about conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic Versus Open Reduction of Intussusception in Children: A Retrospective Review and Meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Background: Intestinal intussusception is a frequent cause of bowel obstruction in children. Initial treatment involves pneumatic reduction. If this fails, operative reduction is indicated. There is controversy regarding use of the laparoscopic (LAP) versus the conventional open approach. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all children with intussusception who required operative reduction at our institution over a 12-year time period. We also performed a meta-analysis to combine our data with the published literature. Results: We identified 28 patients requiring operative intervention for reduction of intussusception between January 2000 and April 2012. Five patients underwent LAP reduction, and 23 patients underwent open reduction. Operative times were not statistically different. The rate of overall complications was not statistically different, with 1 of 5 (20%) and 7 of 23 (30%) having complications in the LAP and open groups, respectively. Mean length of stay was 3.8 – 2.1 days in both the LAP and open groups, with no significant difference. Our meta-analysis identified five retrospective studies comparing LAP and open techniques for reduction of intussusception. We did not find a significant difference between groups with respect to operative time, overall complication rates, or re-operation rates. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the open group. Conclusions: LAP reduction of intussusception is a safe and feasible alternative to the open approach. Length of stay may be shorter in the LAP group."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Intussusception in children may result in significant morbidity and mortality if not treated in a timely fashion. If initial treatment with enema reductions is not successful, patients require operative intervention. Controversy exists as to whether the laparoscopic (LAP) operative approach is as safe and effective as the standard open approach."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "There were two main objectives for this study. First, we aimed to retrospectively review our institution’s experience with the surgical treatment of intussusception, comparing the LAP and open approaches. Second, and most importantly, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, combining our data with existing literature, in order to identify any differences in outcome measures across all identified comparative studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "We only included comparative studies in the pediatric population (0–18 years of age), excluding letters, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and lectures that did not contain original research data. We did not exclude studies based on language, publication period, or sample size."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using the MeSH terms ‘‘intussusception,’’ ‘‘pediatric,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopic.’’"
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Two researchers independently searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using the MeSH terms ‘‘intussusception,’’ ‘‘pediatric,’’ and ‘‘laparoscopic.’’"
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy used for the databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two researchers independently screened the title and abstract of identified articles for potential eligibility and retrieved the full-text version of all articles deemed relevant. They then assessed the full-text articles for relevance and hand-searched the bibliographies of selected studies to identify additional articles. The researchers discussed any discrepancies to reach a mutual consensus regarding each study’s eligibility for inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "After receiving research ethics board approval from our institution, we retrospectively reviewed the electronic and paper charts of all patients requiring operative intervention for intussusception. Patient demographics such as age, weight, and sex were recorded. Perioperative data collected included operative approach, conversion, bowel resection, intraoperative complications, and surgical time."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from the reports.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Patient demographics such as age, weight, and sex were recorded. Perioperative data collected included operative approach, conversion, bowel resection, intraoperative complications, and surgical time. Conversion was defined as instances where an incision was extended to facilitate reduction of the intussusception."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Each author independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria for nonrandomized studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "We analyzed continuous data as weighted mean differences and dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios, using 95% confidence intervals for all analyses."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "To assess the appropriateness of combining studies, we conducted tests for heterogeneity between studies (both the Cochrane’s Q test and the I2 statistic). If the results of these tests showed minimal heterogeneity ( > 0.10 for the Q test, > 50% heterogeneity with the I2 statistic), we used a random effects model for meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Our electronic search identified 40 studies. After applying our exclusion criteria we excluded 35 studies, leaving five retrospective cohort studies for analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "We applied the MINORS criteria to each study (Table 2) and found that all studies were fair to moderate in quality."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the quality of the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics or citations for these studies.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Each author independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the MINORS criteria for nonrandomized studies."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Individually, no studies found a statistically significant difference between groups with respect to overall complication rate. Similarly, after pooling the data from all six studies, we found no significant differences between LAP and open surgery for overall complications (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.99 [0.45, 2.17]; P = .97)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of individual studies, but do not provide a forest plot.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "The results of our meta-analysis showed that the LAP approach was associated with shorter LOS (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 2.15 [0.94, 3.37]; P < .001)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In summary, our data suggest that LAP reduction of intussusception is as technically feasible, safe, and efficacious as the open approach and may even be beneficial in shortening LOS."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our results should be interpreted with caution, as there are some methodological limitations in our study."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In summary, our data suggest that LAP reduction of intussusception is as technically feasible, safe, and efficacious as the open approach and may even be beneficial in shortening LOS. Future directions for study should include multicentered prospective studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Disclosure Statement: No competing financial interests exist."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

151. Sola 2010: Peritoneal Drainage versus Laparotomy for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Intestinal Perforation: A Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 NA 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A systematic review of the published literature between January 2000 and December 2008 was undertaken."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a systematic review but do not provide a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two reviewers (JES, LGK), using a predefined data extraction form, extracted data from the publications related to gestational age, birth weight, type of operation, and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two reviewers extracted the data, indicating a duplicate data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The Ovid (Ovid Technologies New York, NY) and Medline search engines were used to examine both the Pubmed and Cochrane libraries from January 2000 to December 2008."
- Reasoning: The authors mention two databases and the time frame for the search, but do not provide keywords or MESH terms.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished studies.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Systematic review of the literature identified 12 trials that were potentially applicable for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Of these potential studies, five met selection criteria [9–12] and seven were excluded [13–19] due to small sample size and retrospective design (Tables 1 and 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 1 describes the characteristics of the included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "An overall assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was also made."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the studies, but do not provide specific details or results for each study.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Our systematic review of prospective studies from January 2000 to December 2008 demonstrated that PD was associated with a statistically significant excess mortality of 55%."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the results of their systematic review in their conclusions, but do not explicitly state how the quality of the studies influenced their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.0. (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008) was utilized to perform the meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using a specific software for the meta-analysis, indicating an appropriate method to combine the findings.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "The funnel plot depicted in Fig. 2 captures the information needed for a visual assessment of publication bias."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing publication bias using a funnel plot.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Peritoneal Drainage versus Laparotomy for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Intestinal Perforation: A Meta-Analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The abstract is not provided in the provided text.
- Answer: [NA]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "The surgical management of premature neonates with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) or isolated intesti- nal perforation (IP) remains controversial."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing controversy.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We sought to analyze the most recent available publica- tions in order to determine the most effective operative approach for these small, fragile, and critically ill infants."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an objective for the review, but do not explicitly mention all PICOS elements.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies that evaluated only neonates with NEC and IP treated with either LAP (control) or PD (experimental treatment) were selected. Prospective studies, including randomized and nonrandomized designs, with a minimum of 25 patients allocated in each of the treat- ment and control arms, were considered in this systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The Ovid (Ovid Technologies New York, NY) and Medline search engines were used to examine both the Pubmed and Cochrane libraries from January 2000 to December 2008."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a full electronic search strategy.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Systematic review of the literature identified 12 trials that were potentially applicable for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Of these potential studies, five met selection criteria [9–12] and seven were excluded [13–19] due to small sample size and retrospective design (Tables 1 and 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two reviewers (JES, LGK), using a predefined data extraction form, extracted data from the publications related to gestational age, birth weight, type of operation, and mortality."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Gestational age, birth weight, operation, and mortality data were extracted."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "An overall assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was also made."
- Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the studies, but do not provide specific details or results for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Comparisons of dichotomous data were carried out using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method under assumption of fixed effect analysis model, which derived from the fact that included studies entail similar therapies."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.0. (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008) was uti- lized to perform the meta-analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "The funnel plot depicted in Fig. 2 captures the information needed for a visual assessment of publication bias."
- Reasoning: The authors specify an assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Systematic review of the literature identified 12 trials that were potentially applicable for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Of these potential studies, five met selection criteria [9–12] and seven were excluded [13–19] due to small sample size and retrospective design (Tables 1 and 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 1 describes the characteristics of the included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Figure 1 summarizes the results of the meta-analysis of all included prospective trials comparing mortality with PD versus LAP."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each study, and provide a forest plot.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Taken together, these five studies involved 523 patients followed for mortality. Mortality ranged in the LAP group from 15% to 43%, and from 35% to 54% in the PD group."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "The funnel plot depicted in Fig. 2 captures the information needed for a visual assessment of publication bias."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of an assessment of publication bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Our systematic review of prospective studies from January 2000 to December 2008 demonstrated that PD was associated with a statistically significant excess mortality of 55%."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "In addition to patient selection, we acknowledge that other limitations exist in this type of analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, review of the five prospective studies from January 2000 to December 2008 refutes the hypothesis that PD is superior to LAP."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the review.
- Answer: [No]

152. Symeonidis 2016: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for major urological procedures in the pediatric population: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 NA 1 0 1


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "This systematic review was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [7]; a protocol was agreed beforehand by all authors."
Reasoning: The authors mention that a protocol was agreed upon before the review was conducted.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Two reviewers (ENS and DN) working independently extracted data from all eligible studies; any discrepancies were discussed and consensus was reached."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two reviewers independently extracted data and resolved any discrepancies.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A comprehensive electronic search of Medline and Scopus databases was performed with the following keywords: “Single AND (trocar OR incision OR Site) AND Surgery AND (child* OR infan* OR pediatr* OR paediatr* OR adolescen*) NOT adult”."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy using two databases and specific keywords.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "From each eligible study the following parameters were extracted when available: general study characteristics (author, date of publication), patient demographics (age and gender), pro- cedure performed, indication, site of incision, details of surgical technique (entry device employed, access route, size of incision, laparoscopic instruments used, total operation time), intra- operative complications (including conversion to open surgery, use of additional ports and estimated blood loss (EBL)) and surgical outcome (length of hospital stay and post-operative complica- tions)."
Reasoning: The authors provide a detailed description of the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the scientific quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention using the scientific quality of the included studies in formulating their conclusions.
Response: [NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "All extracted data were tabulated and the outcomes were pre- sented cumulatively when applicable."
Reasoning: The authors describe combining the findings of the studies in a cumulative manner.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "No conflicts of interest."
Reasoning: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "Title: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for major urological procedures in the pediatric population: A systematic review"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Background: Improvements in laparoscopic surgery have led to the introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy conferring a number of possible advantages. In this review, we aim to elucidate the aspects of LESS for major urological procedures in the pediatric population. Materials and methods: An in-depth search of the literature was performed in the databases of PubMed and Scopus, for studies investigating the technical aspects and clinical outcomes of partial nephrec- tomies, nephrectomies, nephroureterectomies, varicocelectomies and pyeloplasties in children. Data on parameters such as operation time, instrumentation, perioperative complications, hospital stay and follow up period were collected and further analyzed cumulatively. Results: Twenty nine studies met the inclusion criteria incorporating 386 patients who underwent 401 procedures. There were no major intraoperative complications, with only 19 patients (4.73%) facing postoperative complications. No perioperative deaths were reported. Conclusions: In the hands of experienced surgeons LESS seems a feasible, efficient and less invasive alternative to standard laparoscopy in the field of pediatric urology. There is an eminent need of well- designed randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Laparoscopic surgery is currently the gold standard for the surgical management of pediatric urologic pathologies [1]. Recent improvements in laparoscopic surgical techniques have led to the introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy (CL) conferring a number of possible advantages: better esthetic outcome, decreased incidence of port-site complications, less postoperative pain, reduced anal- gesic requirements and faster recovery [2]."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "In this review, we aim to elucidate the aspects of LESS for major urological procedures in the pediatric population."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Inclusion criteria were: 1) pediatric patient population (age <18 years) 2) single site approach initially selected by the surgeon, 3) procedure carried out completely laparoendoscopically, 4) major urological procedure performed were limited to: nephrectomy, nephrour- ureterectomy, pyeloplasty, varicocelectomy and partial nephrectomy 5) study population of more than one patient. Studies of any design, including studies comparing CL and LESS, were eligible for inclu- sion. Articles in language other than English, and studies reporting on animal models and mixed adult and pediatric population were excluded."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A comprehensive electronic search of Medline and Scopus databases was performed with the following keywords: “Single AND (trocar OR incision OR Site) AND Surgery AND (child* OR infan* OR pediatr* OR paediatr* OR adolescen*) NOT adult”."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "A comprehensive electronic search of Medline and Scopus databases was performed with the following keywords: “Single AND (trocar OR incision OR Site) AND Surgery AND (child* OR infan* OR pediatr* OR paediatr* OR adolescen*) NOT adult”."
Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for two databases.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Two reviewers (ENS and DN) working independently extracted data from all eligible studies; any discrepancies were discussed and consensus was reached."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "Two reviewers (ENS and DN) working independently extracted data from all eligible studies; any discrepancies were discussed and consensus was reached."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "From each eligible study the following parameters were extracted when available: general study characteristics (author, date of publication), patient demographics (age and gender), pro- cedure performed, indication, site of incision, details of surgical technique (entry device employed, access route, size of incision, laparoscopic instruments used, total operation time), intra- operative complications (including conversion to open surgery, use of additional ports and estimated blood loss (EBL)) and surgical outcome (length of hospital stay and post-operative complica- tions)."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "All extracted data were tabulated and the outcomes were pre- sented cumulatively when applicable."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "Twenty nine studies met the inclusion criteria incorporating 386 patients who underwent 401 procedures."
Reasoning: The authors give the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but do not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "From each eligible study the following parameters were extracted when available: general study characteristics (author, date of publication), patient demographics (age and gender), pro- cedure performed, indication, site of incision, details of surgical technique (entry device employed, access route, size of incision, laparoscopic instruments used, total operation time), intra- operative complications (including conversion to open surgery, use of additional ports and estimated blood loss (EBL)) and surgical outcome (length of hospital stay and post-operative complica- tions)."
Reasoning: The authors present the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "During the last decade the number of urological LESS pro- cedures performed worldwide in the pediatric population has increased. Each surgeon based on his experience or preference employed different instruments and entry ports. In the hands of experienced surgeons LESS seems a feasible and attractive alter- native to CL with comparable results."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "However given that the majority of studies included in this systematic review were either case-series or retrospective cohort studies with the risk of bias, especially publication-bias, remaining unambiguous, the results should be interpreted with caution."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "In the hands of experienced surgeons LESS seems a feasible and attractive alter- native to CL with comparable results. However, there is not enough evidence to support the superiority of LESS thus wide adoption cannot be recommended. There is an imperative need of well- designed prospective randomized trials, with large number of pa- tients, in order to clarify the safety and long term efficacy of LESS for urological procedures in the pediatric population."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: "No funding received."
Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

153. Tan 2016: Screening and Treatment of Intestinal Rotational Abnormalities in Heterotaxy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1


LLM response

28 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.6%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "This review was performed according to a protocol that was designed a priori and recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they followed a pre-determined protocol for their systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "Two authors reviewed all the abstracts independently. Agreement regarding potential relevance was reached by consensus."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched electronically on April 24, 2014, and then updated on May 11, 2015; the search was limited to reports published after January 1, 1980."
Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy involving multiple databases.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "A total of 24 studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, which consisted of 1433 cases of heterotaxy."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics of each study.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not explicitly state how the quality of the included studies influenced their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine the data."
Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "Publication bias was explored by the use of funnel plots and was assessed statistically with the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test and Egger tests."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed publication bias using funnel plots and statistical tests.
Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
Reasoning: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Screening and Treatment of Intestinal Rotational Abnormalities in Heterotaxy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The abstract is not provided in the provided text.
Response: [NA]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Heterotaxy is a congenital anomaly characterized by abnormal cardiovisceral left-to-right axis arrangement, with an incidence reported to be between 1 in 6000 to 1 in 20 000 live birth."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review by describing the condition of heterotaxy and its incidence.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the role of screening for IRA and the indication for a prophylactic surgery in asymptomatic patients born with heterotaxy."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state the objectives of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: "This review was performed according to a protocol that was designed a priori and recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The study was registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42014009130) in June 2014."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they followed a pre-determined protocol and provide the registration number for the PROSPERO database.
Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Exclusion criteria were as follows: papers not related to the topic, case reports, case series with fewer than 5 subjects, and prenatal studies without postnatal outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors specify the criteria used to determine the eligibility of studies for inclusion in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched electronically on April 24, 2014, and then updated on May 11, 2015; the search was limited to reports published after January 1, 1980."
Reasoning: The authors describe the databases they searched and the dates of their search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "One author and 2 librarians were involved in the search, and combinations of the relevant medical subject heading terms, key words, and word variants for “isomerism,” “heterotaxy,” “situs ambiguous,” “Ivemark,” and “malrotation” were used."
Reasoning: The authors provide some details about their search strategy, but do not provide enough information for it to be fully replicated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Two authors reviewed all the abstracts independently. Agreement regarding potential relevance was reached by consensus. Full-text copies of potentially eligible papers were obtained, and the same 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant data on study characteristics and the outcomes of interest."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process they used to select studies for inclusion in the review.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Two authors reviewed all the abstracts independently. Agreement regarding potential relevance was reached by consensus. Full-text copies of potentially eligible papers were obtained, and the same 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant data on study characteristics and the outcomes of interest."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process they used to extract data from the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "The outcomes investigated in this systematic review were as follows: (1) incidence of IRA in heterotaxy; (2) detection rate when screening asymptomatic heterotaxy for IRA; (3) incidence of midgut volvulus in heterotaxy cases not screened for IRA; and (4) morbidity and mortality associated with elective prophylactic and emergency Ladd procedures to treat IRA in heterotaxy."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which they sought data.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method they used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine the data."
Reasoning: The authors state that they used meta-analyses of proportions as their principal summary measure.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "Between-study heterogeneity was explored graphically within the forest plot and assessed by the use of the I2 statistic, which represents the percentage between-study variation that is attributable to heterogeneity rather than chance."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods they used to handle data and combine the results of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "Publication bias was explored by the use of funnel plots and was assessed statistically with the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test and Egger tests."
Reasoning: The authors specify that they assessed the risk of publication bias.
Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "A total of 273 articles were identified from the search, and another 3 articles were identified from cross-referencing of citations. Of those, full text of 50 articles were assessed with respect to their eligibility for inclusion."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, and they provide a flow diagram.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "A total of 24 studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, which consisted of 1433 cases of heterotaxy."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information about the characteristics of the included studies, but do not provide detailed characteristics for each study.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: "Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "Screening in asymptomatic cases has a high positive detection rate of IRA (58%). The risk of developing acute midgut volvulus, requiring an emergency laparotomy in patients never screened for IRA, was 5.8%."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each outcome considered.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "Meta-analysis of proportions showed that the incidence of complications was 16% (95% CI 8%-25%), and the mortality was 5.6% (95% CI 2.8%-9.2%) after the elective prophylactic Ladd procedures."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their meta-analyses, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: "Publication bias was explored by the use of funnel plots and was assessed statistically with the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test and Egger tests."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "This meta-analysis quantitatively assessed the importance of screening for IRA and of a prophylactic Ladd procedure in the management of asymptomatic heterotaxy."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings of their review and discuss their relevance.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "This meta-analysis is limited inherently by the quality of the published papers."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "To fully elucidate the benefits and risks of prophylactic surgery, a randomized controlled trial is required, along with follow-up regimen to determine their short- and long-term outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of their results and discuss the implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for their review.
Response: [No]

154. Terui 2015: Surgical approaches for neonatal congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

30 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of endoscopic surgery (ES) for neonatal CDH."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two individual authors extracted data from each selected study."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two independent authors extracted data, but they did not mention if there was a consensus procedure for disagreements.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Systematic searches of English-language articles were conducted by using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, including all records dated from their first entries to March 2015."
- Reasoning: The authors used two electronic databases for their search and provided the search terms used.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention if they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "The eight observational studies were included in a quantitative synthesis."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics of the studies.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each study was evaluated following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system."
- Reasoning: The authors used the GRADE system to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "As assessed on the GRADE scale, the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors considered the quality of the included studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidential intervals (CIs) were determined using RevMan 5.3 software."
- Reasoning: The authors used appropriate statistical methods to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention if they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors declared their conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Surgical approaches for neonatal congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose The optimal surgical approach for neonatal congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of endoscopic surgery (ES) for neonatal CDH."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Introduction: Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a malformation characterized by a defect of the posterolateral diaphragm, intrathoracic herniation of abdominal viscera, and varying degrees of pulmonary hypoplasia and pulmonary hypertension."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about CDH.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In order to integrate the evidence from recent studies, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ES for neonatal CDH."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the research question being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention if a review protocol exists or if it was registered.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "To be included in this meta-analysis, each study had to fulfill the following criteria: (1) the article type was not a review, case report, or letter; (2) all candidates were neonates; and (3) ES and OS were compared."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Systematic searches of English-language articles were conducted by using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, including all records dated from their first entries to March 2015."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "When searching MEDLINE, we used the term ‘‘congenital diaphragmatic hernia,’’ as well as terms related to surgical methods, including ‘‘laparotomy,’’ ‘‘transabdomi*,’’ ‘‘abdomi*,’’ ‘‘thoracotomy,’’ ‘‘transthoracic*,’’ ‘‘open,’’ ‘‘laparoscop*,’’ ‘‘thoracoscop*,’’ ‘‘minimally invasive,’’ and ‘‘minimal access.’’ The term ‘‘congenital diaphragmatic hernia’’ was used when searching the Cochrane Library."
- Reasoning: The authors provided their search strategy for the MEDLINE database.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The articles were screened according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two individual authors extracted data from each selected study."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from the reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The following items were collected: (1) authors’ names and year of publication, (2) title of the published study, (3) journal in which the study was published, (4) country and year of the study, (5) whether the study was single-center or multicenter, (6) whether the study had a prospective or retrospective design, (7) testing sample size, (8) patient age, (9) whether consecutive patients were included, (10) surgical approaches in both arms of the trial, (11) method of assigning patients to the two groups, (12) number of patients receiving each surgical approach, (13) number of patients who failed the allocated treatment (conversion to OS), (14) postoperative follow-up period, (15) number of postoperative deaths, and (16) number of patients who developed recurrence."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "As assessed on the GRADE scale, the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method used for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidential intervals (CIs) were determined using RevMan 5.3 software."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "The random-effects model was used to estimate the combined outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "There was very serious risk of bias due to inappropriate patient selection, unequal follow-up durations, and the absence of controlling for confounding."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Of 264 search results, 226 studies were excluded based on titles and abstracts. After screening the remaining 38 studies based on their full texts, 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "The eight observational studies were included in a quantitative synthesis."
- Reasoning: The authors provided some information about the included studies, but did not provide detailed characteristics of the studies.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "As assessed on the GRADE scale, the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors presented data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The incidence of overall mortality was higher in the OS group than in the ES group (RR = 0.18; 95 % CI 0.09–0.38; z = 4.48; p < 0.00001; Fig. 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of individual studies, including effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "The risk of recurrence was higher in the ES group than in the OS group (RR = 3.10; 95 % CI 1.95–4.94; z = 4.78; p < 0.00001; Fig. 4)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "There was very serious risk of bias due to inappropriate patient selection, unequal follow-up durations, and the absence of controlling for confounding."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, evidence for the effectiveness of ES in CDH neonates remains insufficient."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "As derived in the present study, the best available evidence showed that ES had an unclear effect on mortality in neonatal CDH, and that the recurrence rate in the ES group was clearly higher than that in the OS group."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Therefore, ES should not be the routine treatment for every neonate. It is crucially important to select suitable cases for ES, but the details of this selection remain a topic for future discussion."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and discussed implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Intractable Diseases)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

155. Thomson 2015: Laparoscopic assistance for primary transanal pull-through in Hirschsprung’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.7%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "A study protocol outlining the search strategy, outcomes, and methods of data extraction and statistical analysis was designed and prospectively registered with the Prospero database (CRD42013005698)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a pre-registered study protocol.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Titles and abstracts of potentially relevant papers were screened by two independent authors (DT and BA). The full texts of all identified studies were assessed against the criteria in table 1 by the two independent authors (DT and BA), and study reference lists were hand searched for potentially relevant studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent authors were involved in the study selection and data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched all publications from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2014 from EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases using the search strategy detailed in online supplementary appendix I."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No specific mention of grey literature in the search strategy.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or unpublished studies.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No specific list of included and excluded studies is provided in the text.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 2 summarises the characteristics of included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies."
- Reasoning: The authors mention using a specific tool to assess the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In general, these studies were of low quality, featuring heterogeneity with respect to outcome assessment, limited adjustment for potential confounders and inadequate long-term follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Continuous data were analysed using an inverse variance model to produce a mean difference. Dichotomous variables were analysed using a Mantel-Haenszel model to produce ORs."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing publication bias.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Funding: MK is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Professorship."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose a potential source of funding, but do not mention conflicts of interest for each of the included studies.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic assistance for primary transanal pull-through in Hirschsprung’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: The abstract section provides a structured summary including all the necessary elements.
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Since the first description of Harald Hirschsprung’s eponymous condition in 1889, there has been ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical approach."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes for infants with Hirschsprung’s disease undergoing a TTERPT procedure with those undergoing a laparoscopically assisted transanal pull-through (LAPT)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, including participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: "A study protocol outlining the search strategy, outcomes, and methods of data extraction and statistical analysis was designed and prospectively registered with the Prospero database (CRD42013005698)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a pre-registered study protocol and provide the registration number.
- Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Study inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table summarizing the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched all publications from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2014 from EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases using the search strategy detailed in online supplementary appendix I."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the dates of coverage for their search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We searched all publications from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2014 from EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases using the search strategy detailed in online supplementary appendix I."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a description of their search strategy, but the full search strategy is not included in the main text.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Titles and abstracts of potentially relevant papers were screened by two independent authors (DT and BA). The full texts of all identified studies were assessed against the criteria in table 1 by the two independent authors (DT and BA), and study reference lists were hand searched for potentially relevant studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Data were extracted by the two independent authors (DT and BA) using a predesigned proforma."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data were collected regarding: age at gestation, diagnosis and surgery, level of anal dissection, length of mucosal cuff, length and location of aganglionosis, and any congenital abnormalities."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Two independent authors (DT and BA) assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Continuous data were analysed using an inverse variance model to produce a mean difference. Dichotomous variables were analysed using a Mantel-Haenszel model to produce ORs."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Continuous data were analysed using an inverse variance model to produce a mean difference. Dichotomous variables were analysed using a Mantel-Haenszel model to produce ORs."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to handle data and combine the results of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No specific mention of additional analyses.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A total of 2107 records were screened, of which 41 studies potentially met the eligibility criteria (figure 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, and provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 2 summarises the characteristics of included studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies."
- Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Operative duration was 50.29 min shorter with TTERPT (95% CI 39.83 to 60.74, p<0.00001). There were no significant differences identified between TTERPT and LAPT for incidence of postoperative enterocolitis (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.38, p=0.39), faecal incontinence (OR=0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.20, p=0.32) or constipation (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.17, p=0.71)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group for all outcomes considered.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Operative duration was 50.29 min shorter with TTERPT (95% CI 39.83 to 60.74, p<0.00001). There were no significant differences identified between TTERPT and LAPT for incidence of postoperative enterocolitis (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.38, p=0.39), faecal incontinence (OR=0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.20, p=0.32) or constipation (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.17, p=0.71)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No specific mention of assessing risk of bias across studies.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No specific mention of additional analyses.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "This meta-analysis identified only five eligible studies comparing TTERPT to LAPT. In general, these studies were of low quality, featuring heterogeneity with respect to outcome assessment, limited adjustment for potential confounders and inadequate long-term follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and discuss the strength of the evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "In general, these studies were of low quality, featuring heterogeneity with respect to outcome assessment, limited adjustment for potential confounders and inadequate long-term follow-up."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of the study.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Despite widespread enthusiasm for newer procedures, it is important to note that virtually all data on bowel function in adulthood in patients with Hirschsprung’s disease come from those operated on with a transabdominal Duhamel technique."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Funding: MK is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Professorship."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose the source of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

156. Thyoka 2013: Balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We decided, a priori, to limit our review to studies that reported outcomes of balloon dilatation (both endoscopically and under fluoroscopic control) of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia in children."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that they had a pre-determined research objective.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two reviewers (M.T. and A.T.) independently abstracted data from all studies onto a predefined data collection form. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent reviewers were involved in the data extraction process and a consensus procedure was in place.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched the standard databases (January, 1960–May, 2012): MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) using the MeSH Terms “esophageal stricture”, “esophageal stenosis” and “balloon dilatation” to identify the studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive search strategy including multiple databases and specific search terms.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on their publication status.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 1 shows the characteristics of all the studies included in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "In total, 139 children (81 [58%] male) were included in this review. In total, 401 balloon dilatation sessions were performed (2.9 dilatations per child)."
- Reasoning: The authors combine the findings of the included studies in a simple and appropriate way.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest None"
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there were no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia: a systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The full text does not include an abstract or structured summary.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Surgical repair of oesophageal atresia may result in anastomotic strictures. These strictures are often treated by balloon dilatation (BD) and currently balloon dilatation (fluoroscopic or endoscopic) is the preferred primary treatment method."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of current treatment methods for anastomotic strictures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In this review, we sought to review the current published evidence of the outcomes of balloon dilatation of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state the objective of the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "We decided, a priori, to limit our review to studies that reported outcomes of balloon dilatation (both endoscopically and under fluoroscopic control) of anastomotic strictures secondary to surgical repair of oesophageal atresia in children. There was no language restriction."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the eligibility criteria for the studies included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched the standard databases (January, 1960–May, 2012): MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) using the MeSH Terms “esophageal stricture”, “esophageal stenosis” and “balloon dilatation” to identify the studies."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the databases and search terms used in their literature search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We searched the standard databases (January, 1960–May, 2012): MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) using the MeSH Terms “esophageal stricture”, “esophageal stenosis” and “balloon dilatation” to identify the studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provide enough information about their search strategy for it to be repeated.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Abstracts were screened to identify the relevance of the retrieved reports. Further screening of the bibliography was undertaken to include as many studies as possible, which may have been missed from our initial search."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two reviewers (M.T. and A.T.) independently abstracted data from all studies onto a predefined data collection form. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Outcomes of interest were success of balloon dilatation (dysphagia improvement), incidence of oesophageal perforation and requirement of stent placement and/or oesophageal surgery (revision of anastomosis and/or oesophageal replacement)."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods for assessing risk of bias in the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "In total, 139 children (81 [58%] male) were included in this review. In total, 401 balloon dilatation sessions were performed (2.9 dilatations per child)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "In total, 139 children (81 [58%] male) were included in this review. In total, 401 balloon dilatation sessions were performed (2.9 dilatations per child)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe how they handled and combined the results of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "We identified 26 studies from our search that were deemed relevant and these were further scrutinised for eligibility for inclusion in this review. Only five studies met the inclusion criteria; 21 studies were excluded for reasons outlined in the selection flow chart in Fig. 1."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, along with a flow diagram.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 1 shows the characteristics of all the studies included in this review."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias within each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The success rate of balloon dilatations was reported in all studies [3, 6, 8, 9, 10], ranging from 70% to 100% successful. Similarly, all the studies reported on the number of perforations. A total of seven perforations occurred following 401 balloon dilatation sessions (0.02 perforations per dilatation session; Fig. 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each outcome considered, but do not provide confidence intervals or a forest plot.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "Balloon dilatation for anastomotic strictures post-oesophageal atresia repair is safe, and associated with a low perforation and mortality rates, and approximately three dilatations are required per child. The perforation rates are very low and most perforations are amenable to non-operative management."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "One of the chief limitations present in all the studies in this review has been the lack of a standardised definition of success following balloon dilatation."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss a limitation of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Balloon dilatation for anastomotic strictures post-oesophageal atresia repair is safe, and associated with a low perforation and mortality rates, and approximately three dilatations are required per child. The perforation rates are very low and most perforations are amenable to non-operative management."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

157. van Dalen 2015: Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA 1


LLM response

19 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.3%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 70%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "To ascertain differences in outcome between the minimally invasive and open surgical approaches for the treatment of solid intra-abdominal or intra-thoracic neoplasms in children."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly stated the research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors performed the study selection independently."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two authors independently performed the study selection, but there is no mention of data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to February 2014) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to February 2014) to identify relevant studies."
- Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and provided the years of coverage.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "The literature search retrieved 542 references. After screening the titles and abstracts we excluded 534 references which clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number of studies retrieved and excluded, but did not provide a list of these studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not provide any characteristics of included studies.
- Response: [NA]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not assess the scientific quality of any studies.
- Response: [NA]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not use the scientific quality of any studies to formulate their conclusions.
- Response: [NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not combine the findings of any studies.
- Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not assess the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: None known."
- Reasoning: The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children (Review)"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "ABSTRACT: Background" [...] "Authors' conclusions"
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an accepted surgical technique for the treatment of a variety of benign diseases."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "OBJECTIVES: To ascertain differences in outcome between the minimally invasive and open surgical approaches for the treatment of solid intra-abdominal or intra-thoracic neoplasms in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether a review protocol exists or where it can be accessed.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing MIS to open surgery for the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children (aged 0 to 18 years) were considered for inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to February 2014) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to February 2014) to identify relevant studies."
- Reasoning: The authors described all information sources in the search and the date last searched.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search strategies for the different electronic databases (using a combination of controlled vocabulary and text word terms) are reported in the Appendices (Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Appendix 3)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the full electronic search strategy for multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "After employing the search strategy described previously, two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary outcomes of interest are OS, EFS, port-site metastases and recurrence rate; the secondary outcome of interest is surgical morbidity."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not state the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The literature search retrieved 542 references. After screening the titles and abstracts we excluded 534 references which clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors gave numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not present characteristics for any studies.
- Response: [NA]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not present data on risk of bias of any studies.
- Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not present results of individual studies.
- Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not present results of any meta-analysis.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not include any studies in their review, so they did not give results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "No RCTs or CCTs evaluating MIS for the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children could be identified."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The current evidence base informing the use of MIS in children with solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms is based on other study designs such as case series, retrospective chart reviews and cohort studies and should be interpreted with caution."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed limitations at the review level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "High quality RCTs comparing MIS to open surgery are required. These RCTs should be performed in homogeneous study populations (for example, with regard to tumour type and stage of disease)."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "The editorial base of the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group is funded by Kinderen Kankervrij (KIKA)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the source of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

158. Vanden Berg 2016: Nephron-sparing surgery for Wilms tumor: A systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 NA 0 1


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Before the formal literature search, the protocol was prospectively registered at the international registry of systematic reviews, PROSPERO (registration number CRD42015016420)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that the protocol was prospectively registered.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The 2 reviewers, R.N.W.V. and E.N.B. independently reviewed all study abstracts in duplicate with disagreements resolved by the senior author (J.C.R.). Full-text articles appearing to meet selection criteria were reviewed, and study data was abstracted in the same manner."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two reviewers independently reviewed the studies and resolved disagreements.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases for studies published between 1980 and 2014 based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [19]."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they searched multiple databases and followed PRISMA guidelines.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "We also manually searched for unpublished abstracts presented at relevant scientific meetings: the American Urological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Urology, the Pediatric Academic Societies, the American Pediatric Surgical Association, and the European Society of Pediatric Urology."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they searched for unpublished abstracts from scientific meetings.
- Answer: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "A total of 66 studies met all criteria for inclusion and were included in the final review (Fig. 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Of the 66 included studies, most (60, 91%) were retrospective cohorts or case series, including 1 administrative database analysis that also met inclusion criteria. Only 6 (9%) studies reported prospective data."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, such as the type of study and the number of studies of each type.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Most included studies were retrospective case series with highly variable reporting quality; this made data abstraction particularly challenging."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the quality of the included studies but do not provide a detailed assessment.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "However, these studies are significantly limited by their inherent methodological flaws; notably, to the best of our knowledge there is no randomized controlled trial of NSS and RN use in children with WT."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the limitations of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Owing to these differences in reporting among studies in conjunction with a lack of individual patient data, direct comparisons of outcomes data (e.g., overall or event-free survival rates after RN and NSS) was not performed."
- Reasoning: The authors did not combine the findings of the studies due to differences in reporting and lack of individual patient data.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Dr. Routh is supported in part by Grant K08-DK100534 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The funding source had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the source of funding and its role in the study.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Nephron-sparing surgery for Wilms tumor: A systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Introduction: Radical nephrectomy (RN, or total nephrectomy) is the current gold-standard surgical treatment for children with Wilms tumors (WT). However, nephron-sparing surgery (NSS, or partial nephrectomy) has recently been gaining increasing attention. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of NSS as compared with RN for the treatment of children with WT. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and recently presented meeting abstracts for reports in English. The bibliographies of included studies were then hand-searched for any missed articles. The protocol was prospectively registered. Manuscripts were assessed and data abstracted in duplicate with differences resolved by the senior author. Owing to high heterogeneity among the final included studies, only a qualitative systematic review was performed; no formal meta-analysis was undertaken. Results: We identified 694 articles, 118 of which were selected for full-text review and 66 of which were included in the final analysis. Most studies were single- or multi-institution retrospective case series (60, 91%), with a small number of prospective cohort studies (6, 9%) and 1 administrative database analysis. Most studies were from Europe (27, 41%) or North America (21, 32%). Nearly half (32, 48%) of studies those were included were dated from 2010 or later. In total, data on 4,002 patients were included, of whom 1,040 (26%) underwent NSS and 2,962 (74%) underwent NSS. Reported rupture rates were similar between RN and NSS (13% vs. 7%), as were recurrence rates (12% vs. 11%) and survival rates (85% vs. 88%). However, these comparisons are limited by inherent biases in the design and reporting of most included studies. Conclusions: Most contemporary studies reporting the use of NSS in children with WT report similar long-term outcomes to RN. However, most existing studies are limited by their small numbers, inconsistent reporting, and methodological biases. There are significant opportunities for future research on the use of NSS in children with WT, including issues related to surgical quality, optimal technique, timing and duration of chemotherapy, and variation in the use of NSS among centers. r 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Introduction: Wilms tumor (WT) is the most common solid renal malignancy in children; the estimated annual incidence rate is 7 to 10 cases per million for children younger than 15 years. The Children's Oncology Group (COG) identifies approximately 600 children per year in the United States with a renal tumor, more than 90% of which are WT. Bilateral WT are relatively uncommon, accounting for 5% to 7% of children with renal tumors [1,2]. Multimodality therapy, including radical nephrectomy (RN) via a transperitoneal approach is the mainstay of WT management [3]. Historically, nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) was generally reserved for bilateral WT or children with a solitary kidney in whom preservation of renal function was mandatory [4]."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The objective of this systematic review was to examine the accumulated literature on the use of NSS among children with WT, both unilateral and bilateral. Specifically, the aims of this study are to assess the reported outcomes of NSS and to compare these with the current gold-standard surgical treatment of WT, RN."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: "Before the formal literature search, the protocol was prospectively registered at the international registry of systematic reviews, PROSPERO (registration number CRD42015016420)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that the protocol was prospectively registered and provide the registration number.
- Answer: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "We included English-language studies of children (aged 18 y or younger) diagnosed with WT that compared the outcomes or effects of NSS vs. RN. No manuscript was excluded based on method of analysis, definition of success, perceived quality, or susceptibility to bias. In cases of ambiguity or where study reporting made evaluation difficult, we attempted to err on the side of inclusiveness."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases for studies published between 1980 and 2014 based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [19]. The bibliographies of included studies were then hand-searched for any missed articles. We also manually searched for unpublished abstracts presented at relevant scientific meetings: the American Urological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Urology, the Pediatric Academic Societies, the American Pediatric Surgical Association, and the European Society of Pediatric Urology."
- Reasoning: The authors describe all information sources in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The initial literature search was designed and executed by a reference librarian at our institution (M.V.N.). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases for studies published between 1980 and 2014 based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [19]. The exploded search terms were: “nephron-sparing surgery,” “partial nephrectomy,” or “nephron sparing surgery,” restricted to “tumor,” “mass,” “Wilms,” “cancer,” or “renal cell carcinoma.” These were then restricted to articles retrieved under a second search for the exploded search terms “pediatric,” “child,” or “children.” Reference lists of included studies were manually screened for any additional studies. We also manually searched for unpublished abstracts presented at relevant scientific meetings: the American Urological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Urology, the Pediatric Academic Societies, the American Pediatric Surgical Association, and the European Society of Pediatric Urology. The exact search strategy for each database is detailed in Appendix 1."
- Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The 2 reviewers, R.N.W.V. and E.N.B. independently reviewed all study abstracts in duplicate with disagreements resolved by the senior author (J.C.R.). Full-text articles appearing to meet selection criteria were reviewed, and study data was abstracted in the same manner."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The 2 reviewers, R.N.W.V. and E.N.B. independently reviewed all study abstracts in duplicate with disagreements resolved by the senior author (J.C.R.). Full-text articles appearing to meet selection criteria were reviewed, and study data was abstracted in the same manner."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "In total, 4,022 patients were included. Of these, 1,632 children (41%) were male patients. Reported ages ranged from o1 month to 18 years. Bilateral tumors were present in 1,153 (29%) patients, including at least 4 metachronous contralateral tumors. The reported mean size of excised tumors ranged from 5 to 14 cm for RN and 1.5 to 9 cm for NSS. NSS was performed in 1,040 (26%) patients and 1,311 (32%) kidneys, whereas RN was performed in 2,962 (74%) patients and 2,844 (68%) kidneys. Preoperative chemotherapy was reported as being given to 195 (7%) of the RN patients and 248 (24%) of the patients with NSS."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Owing to high heterogeneity among the final included studies, only a qualitative systematic review was performed; no formal meta-analysis was undertaken."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data but do not combine results of studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "A total of 694 publications were identified using our search criteria, with an additional 3 reports identified by hand-searching bibliographies of included studies and conference abstracts. Of these, 118 studies were selected for full-text review. We excluded 15 studies owing to a focus on disease other than WT; 5 studies owing to inability to extract out pediatric-specific data; 18 studies owing to duplicate reporting or review of previous reports; and 15 studies owing to insufficient reporting of data on patients with RN and NSS. A total of 66 studies met all criteria for inclusion and were included in the final review (Fig. 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, and provide a flow diagram.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Of the 66 included studies, most (60, 91%) were retrospective cohorts or case series, including 1 administrative database analysis that also met inclusion criteria. Only 6 (9%) studies reported prospective data. The complete list of included studies is in Table 1."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide the citations.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors did not perform a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In summary, most contemporary studies reporting the use of NSS in children with WT report similar long-term outcomes to RN; specifically, reported rates of ESRD, tumor recurrence, tumor rupture, and overall survival are, on average, relatively similar."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "However, these studies are significantly limited by their inherent methodological flaws; notably, to the best of our knowledge there is no randomized controlled trial of NSS and RN use in children with WT."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Thus there are significant opportunities for future research on the use of NSS in children with WT, and it is incumbent on clinicians and researchers who care for children with WT to continue to attempt to answer these questions. The short- and long-term risks and benefits of NSS and RN as “gold standard” treatments for all children, and for each individual child, are ripe areas for future comparative effectiveness research."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Dr. Routh is supported in part by Grant K08-DK100534 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The funding source had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review and the role of the funders.
- Answer: [Yes]

159. van den Hondel 2014: To Split or Not to Split: Colostomy Complications for Anorectal Malformations or Hirschsprung Disease: A Single Center Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA 0 1


LLM response

20 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)

1 quote(s) from the LLM prompt briefing (mean similarity 81.5%) - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "The aim of this article is to identify the ideal type and location of colostomy in children with colorectal disease." "In this study, we therefore evaluated our own experiences with colostomies in children with an anorectal malformation, and performed a systematic review of the literature on complications of colostomies in children with an anorectal malformation or Hirschsprung disease."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state their research question and objectives, but there is no mention of a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.
Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases with the help of an experienced librarian."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they conducted a systematic literature search in multiple databases, but they do not provide details on the years searched, keywords used, or any supplementary search strategies.
Response: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was included in the search.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "The eight studies included a total of 2,954 patients."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information on the number of patients in the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics of the studies.
Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "Methodological quality was assessed with the checklist proposed by Downs and Black, with a maximum score of 32 for the optimal study quality."
Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a specific tool.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the authors combined the findings of the included studies.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Conflict of Interest: None."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there is no conflict of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "To Split or Not to Split: Colostomy Complications for Anorectal Malformations or Hirschsprung Disease: A Single Center Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract: Introduction The aim of this article is to identify the ideal type and location of colostomy in children with colorectal disease. Patients and Methods A retrospective case study of children with an anorectal malformation who received a colostomy, born between January 1990 and July 2012. Furthermore, a systematic literature search on colostomies in neonates with an anorectal malformation or Hirschsprung disease. Colostomies were classified as loop or split colostomies in the transverse or sigmoid colon. Outcome measures were mortality and complications such as prolapse, technical difficulties with the reconstruction, urinary tract infections, and others. Results The mortality rate in the 180 children with anorectal malformation was 6%, and none of them were directly related to stoma formation or closure. The overall complication rate was 23% and the specific rates for the two types of procedures and the two locations of the colostomy did not differ (p ¼ 0.389 and p ¼ 0.667, respectively). All prolapses (n ¼ 22) occurred in loop colostomies in the transverse colon. One colostomy required revision because of insufficient length for the reconstruction. Urinary tract infections were not documented. A total of eight studies were included in the systematic review (1982–2011; 2,954 patients). Mortality ranged between 0.1 and 11%. Loop colostomies had more complications than split colostomies (63 vs. 45%; p ¼ 0.007), mainly prolapse (18 vs. 6%; p < 0.001). Overall complication rate differed between transverse en sigmoid colostomies (62 vs. 51%, p ¼ 0.006), and prolapse occurred more often in the transverse colon (23 vs. 7%; p < 0.001). Revision because of insufficient length during the reconstruction was needed in 0 to 6%. Two studies reported on urinary tract infections which are as follows: One showed no difference between loop or split colostomies, whereas the other showed frequent episodes of urinary tract infections in 64% of the loop colostomies. Conclusions The complication to be avoided in transverse colostomies is prolapse and the surgical technique should be modified accordingly. The procedure of split sigmoid colostomy is meticulous, and the risk of insufficient length for the reconstruction remains."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "Anorectal malformations and Hirschsprung disease are congenital malformations that show a wide clinical variety. In children with a high anorectal malformation, a colostomy is constructed in the neonatal period when direct reconstruction in the first few days of life is not possible. The colostomy is closed after reconstructive surgery later in life. In children with Hirschsprung disease, a stoma is formed if the bowel cannot be decompressed with the use of rectal washouts. The stoma is closed after the aganglionic bowel has been resected and a pull-through procedure has been performed."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about anorectal malformations and Hirschsprung disease.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "The aim of this article is to identify the ideal type and location of colostomy in children with colorectal disease."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the research question, but they do not explicitly mention the PICOS components.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether a review protocol exists or where it can be accessed.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "Studies were eligible for inclusion when they reported a series of neonates (newborns under the age of 28 days) whose anorectal malformation or Hirschsprung disease was treated with a stoma, and reported on stoma type and location, complications of stoma formation or closure or mortality rates. Studies excluded were the case series of less than 10 patients, articles that were not written in English, and articles that did not provide information on stoma type and location. Studies from developing countries were excluded because of the different setting compared with the developed countries. In case of duplicate publications, the most recent publication was included."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility and provide a rationale for their choices.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases with the help of an experienced librarian."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search, but they do not provide the dates of coverage or the date of the last search.
Response: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "The general search terms were the same for the three databases, which are as follows: anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung disease, colostomy, and children."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information on the search strategy, but they do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Two investigators (D.H. and C.S.) independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved citations, retrieved full texts of eligible articles, and selected relevant articles matching the selection criteria described below. Disagreements were resolved by discussion."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "The two investigators selected the articles independently, extracted literature data, and recorded them in purpose-designed forms."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "These data concerned study design, study population, follow-up, survival, complications, and reoperations. Primary outcome measure was complication rate in relation to colostomy type (loop or split colostomy) and location (transverse colon or sigmoid colon). Secondary outcome measures were mortality rate, requirement of stoma revision, and complications after stoma closure."
Reasoning: The authors list and define the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "Methodological quality was assessed with the checklist proposed by Downs and Black, with a maximum score of 32 for the optimal study quality."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "The described search strategy yielded 877 citations in PubMed, 1,103 in Embase, and 367 in Web of Science. After deleting the duplicates, 1,325 publications remained. Eight of these met the inclusion and exclusion criteria."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but they do not provide a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "The eight studies included a total of 2,954 patients."
Reasoning: The authors provide some information on the characteristics of the included studies, but they do not provide detailed characteristics for each study.
Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide data on the risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the results of a meta-analysis.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide results of any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "A relatively high complication rate is described in colostomy formation in children with an anorectal malformation or Hirschsprung disease. The preferred location of the stoma is the descending or sigmoid colon to avoid prolapse and to leave enough length for the reconstruction. When transverse colostomy is preferred because of severely distended bowel, the complication to be avoided is prolapse and surgical technique should be modified accordingly."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations at the study and outcome level or at the review level.
Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "The procedure of colostomy formation in anorectal malformations and Hirschsprung disease is meticulous and should be performed with great care."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: None.
Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

160. Vernon-Roberts 2013: Fundoplication versus postoperative medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children with neurological impairment undergoing gastrostomy

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "To compare the effectiveness of antireflux surgery and antireflux medications for children with neurological impairments and GOR who are undergoing placement of a gastrostomy feeding tube."
Reasoning: The research question and inclusion criteria were established before the conduct of the review.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "The review authors worked independently to select trials; none were identified."
Reasoning: The authors worked independently to select trials, indicating a duplicate study selection process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science."
Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and provided the search date.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: "We also performed online searches of trial registries, medical journals, conference proceedings, dissertations and theses."
Reasoning: The authors searched for grey literature.
Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included or excluded as none met the criteria.
Response: [NA]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no characteristics could be provided.
Response: [NA]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no quality assessment could be performed.
Response: [NA]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no quality assessment could be used in formulating conclusions.
Response: [NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no methods to combine findings were used.
Response: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no assessment of publication bias could be performed.
Response: [NA]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "Angharad Vernon-Roberts - research nurse salary funded by Cerebra (Charity for Brain Injured Children and Young People). Peter B Sullivan - has received grant funding, speakers fees and consultancy fees from Nutricia Ltd."
Reasoning: The authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Fundoplication versus postoperative medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children with neurological impairment undergoing gastrostomy (Review)"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "ABSTRACT Background Children with neurological impairments frequently experience feeding difficulties, which can lead to malnutrition and growth failure" [...] "Authors' conclusions There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment when faced with the decision of fundoplication surgery versus antireflux medications for children with GOR and neurological impairment who are undergoing gastrostomy insertion."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Children with neurological impairments frequently experience profound feeding difficulties, which can lead to malnutrition and growth failure" [...] "This review aims to assess the efficacy of fundoplication for neurologically impaired children who are at a high risk of ARP failure compared with medical antireflux treatment."
Reasoning: The introduction provides the rationale for the review.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "To compare the effectiveness of antireflux surgery and antireflux medications for children with neurological impairments and GOR who are undergoing placement of a gastrostomy feeding tube."
Reasoning: The objective of the review is clearly stated.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: "The protocol for this review was published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2006."
Reasoning: The existence of a review protocol is indicated.
Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "We sought to include randomised controlled trials that recruited children up to the age of 18 years with neurological impairments and GOR who were undergoing gastrostomy tube insertion."
Reasoning: The eligibility criteria for the studies are specified.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science."
Reasoning: The information sources and the date of the last search are described.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "We searched the following databases on 23 March 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and ISI Web of Science."
Reasoning: The databases searched are listed, but the specific search strategy is not provided.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "The review authors worked independently to select trials; none were identified."
Reasoning: The process for selecting studies is stated.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Data extraction forms will be designed to include study design, participant characteristics, study setting, intervention type and outcomes. Data will be extracted independently by two review authors (AVR and PBS) and disagreements will be resolved through discussion or by contacting the study author for further information."
Reasoning: The method of data extraction is described.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Data extraction forms will be designed to include study design, participant characteristics, study setting, intervention type and outcomes."
Reasoning: The variables for which data were sought are listed.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "Selected studies will be independently evaluated by two review authors (AVR and PBS) using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias."
Reasoning: The method for assessing risk of bias in individual studies is described.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "For dichotomous data, the risk ratio and its 95% confidence interval will be calculated. For studies using standardised assessment tools that have generated a scored outcome measure, we will calculate a mean difference. For studies using different scales, we will calculate the standardised difference in means with a 95% confidence interval."
Reasoning: The principal summary measures are stated.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no methods to combine results were used.
Response: [NA]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no assessment of risk of bias across studies could be performed.
Response: [NA]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no additional analyses were performed.
Response: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "We identified 1033 reports from the original electronic searches" [...] "The search update from June 2006 to June 2009 produced a further 476 reports but identified no trials meeting the inclusion. We revised the search strategies in 2012 and ran searches on 23 March 2012, which produced 385 reports, none of which met the inclusion criteria."
Reasoning: The number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review is given.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no characteristics could be presented.
Response: [NA]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no data on risk of bias could be presented.
Response: [NA]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no results of individual studies could be presented.
Response: [NA]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no synthesis of results could be presented.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no assessment of risk of bias across studies could be presented.
Response: [NA]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: "We identified no trials that satisfied the criteria for this review."
Reasoning: No studies were included, so no additional analyses were performed.
Response: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of antireflux fundoplication surgery with the use of antireflux medications in children with neurological impairments undergoing gastrostomy feeding tube insertion. We identified no relevant RCTs."
Reasoning: The main findings and the strength of evidence are summarized.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "This review has demonstrated that there is no evidence available from reliable sources on which to draw any conclusions. We cannot provide data on the comparable risks or benefits of either treatment and are subsequently unable to provide recommendations for the best approach in this group of children."
Reasoning: The limitations of the review are discussed.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "There continues to be considerable uncertainty regarding optimal treatment option when faced with the decision of performing surgery or prescribing medications for gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) in children with neurological impairment who are undergoing a gastrostomy."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "Angharad Vernon-Roberts was funded by Cerebra (Charity for Brain Injured Children and Young People)."
Reasoning: The source of funding for the systematic review is described.
Response: [Yes]

161. Wang 2013: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1


LLM response

32 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We hypothesized a priori that the direction and magnitude of surgical outcomes among studies may differ depending on whether the studies had a type of RCT or cohort study, whether the surgeons used a standard or modified technique, and whether surgical techniques had different surgical details."
- Reasoning: The authors mention a priori hypotheses about the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The eligibility determination, quality assessment and data extraction for each study were conducted independently by two of the authors (FRW and YHX) and conflicts were resolved by a third author (HJZ)."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that two independent authors conducted the study selection and data extraction.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The systematic search of the literature was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed (1950–), Embase (1988–) and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including it as a criterion.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "From the 94 citations initially identified, 12 studies [2, 3, 10–19] including 690 cases (338 cases for PBF and 352 cases for TIP) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies initially identified and the number of studies included in the final analysis, but they do not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Among the included studies, there were seven RCTs [10–12, 15, 16, 18, 19] and five cohort studies [2, 3, 13, 14, 17], eleven studies [2, 3, 10–15, 17–19] published as full-text articles and one [16] as abstract, and nine studies [2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17–19] published in English and three [11, 13, 16] in other languages."
- Reasoning: The authors provide information about the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "The level of evidence on which this review was based ranged from 2b to 1b."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the level of evidence of the included studies, indicating that they assessed the scientific quality of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "Given the significant clinical heterogeneity, we used random-effects model, and thus our conclusions were more conservative."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they took into account the scientific quality of the studies when formulating their conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Given the significant clinical heterogeneity between studies, the random-effects model was used for all comparisons."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical method used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Possible publication bias was analyzed by generating funnel plots of the studies used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap (PBF) and tubularized incised-plate (TIP) techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determine whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "There are more than 300 surgical procedures for hypospadias repair, however, controversy continues over the ideal technique."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "In the present study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the PBF and TIP techniques for primary hypospadias repair and determined whether the two techniques had similar reported outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Our inclusion criteria were as follows: primary hypospadias repair only; including both the PBF and TIP techniques; at least one of the outcomes obtainable from study; comparative studies."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The systematic search of the literature was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed (1950–), Embase (1988–) and Cochrane databases."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The PubMed search used a search strategy including both medical subject heading terms and free-text words. The following terms were used: hypospadias, Snodgrass, TIP*, tubularized incised plate, tubularized incised-plate, Mathieu*, perimeatal-based flap, perimeatal flap, meatal-based flap and meatal based flap. No ‘‘language’’ or other limits were used."
- Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for one database.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select studies for full review if they contained results of primary hypospadias repair including both the PBF and TIP techniques. Where the relevance of a study was unclear a review of the full text was undertaken."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "We extracted data from each study using a predefined data extraction form. The variables assessed included first author, publication year and type, level of evidence, patient age and number, length of follow-up, patient characteristics, surgical techniques and details (coverage of the neo-urethra, suture material and fashion, urinary diversion), and postoperative outcomes (fistula, meatal stenosis, wound dehiscence and cosmesis)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The variables assessed included first author, publication year and type, level of evidence, patient age and number, length of follow-up, patient characteristics, surgical techniques and details (coverage of the neo-urethra, suture material and fashion, urinary diversion), and postoperative outcomes (fistula, meatal stenosis, wound dehiscence and cosmesis)."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The effect measures estimated were odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data, both reported with 95 % confidence interval (CI)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Given the significant clinical heterogeneity between studies, the random-effects model was used for all comparisons."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Possible publication bias was analyzed by generating funnel plots of the studies used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors specify an assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "To explore the effect of methodological quality and the variations in surgical procedures, subgroup analyses were conducted across publication type (RCT or cohort study), the PBF technique (standard or modified), coverage of the neo-urethra (single-layer or double-layer), suture for urethroplasty (6/0 or 7/0) and glansplasty (4/0, 6/0 or 7/0), and the stent for urinary diversion (6–8F or 8–10F)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "From the 94 citations initially identified, 12 studies [2, 3, 10–19] including 690 cases (338 cases for PBF and 352 cases for TIP) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Among the included studies, there were seven RCTs [10–12, 15, 16, 18, 19] and five cohort studies [2, 3, 13, 14, 17], eleven studies [2, 3, 10–15, 17–19] published as full-text articles and one [16] as abstract, and nine studies [2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17–19] published in English and three [11, 13, 16] in other languages."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide the citations.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis of the ten studies revealed that the fistula rate after PBF procedure did not significantly differ from that after TIP (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82 to 2.63; P = 0.20)."
- Reasoning: The authors present simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis of the ten studies revealed that the fistula rate after PBF procedure did not significantly differ from that after TIP (OR = 1.47; 95 % CI: 0.82 to 2.63; P = 0.20)."
- Reasoning: The authors present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Possible publication bias was analyzed by generating funnel plots of the studies used for all of the evaluated comparisons of outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "Subgroup analyses showed a basically consistent result with the total effect except for the analysis of meatal stenosis."
- Reasoning: The authors give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "It showed that both the two techniques were effective for primary hypospadias repair, with low rates of postoperative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our study has several limitations. First, some critical data were rarely documented as described above, so we could not fully adjust the confounding factors."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "Accordingly, future more well-designed studies with full data and uniform criterion are awaited."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Acknowledgments: None."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that there were no sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

162. Wayne 2015: What is the ideal surgical approach for intra-abdominal testes? a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 1 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

33 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quotes: "We conducted a systematic review of literature focusing on the surgical treatment of IAT, including quality assessment of each study."
Reasoning: The authors mention conducting a systematic review but do not provide any information about a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quotes: "Two researchers screened all studies for inclusion, and quality assessed each relevant study using AMSTAR for systematic reviews (SRs), Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and MINORS for non-randomized studies."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two researchers were involved in the study selection and quality assessment process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quotes: "We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to September 2014."
Reasoning: The authors mention searching multiple databases and provide the time frame for the search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on their publication status.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quotes: "The remaining 31 studies comprised two SRs and 29 non-randomized studies; we quality assessed and summarized these studies (Table 1)."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number and types of studies included and refer to a table where the characteristics of these studies are provided.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quotes: "Two researchers" [...] "quality assessed each relevant study using AMSTAR for systematic reviews (SRs), Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and MINORS for non-randomized studies."
Reasoning: The authors mention assessing the quality of the included studies using appropriate tools.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quotes: "Our overall finding is that there is a paucity of good-quality evidence on this topic."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the quality of the evidence in their conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quotes: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not possible."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the heterogeneity of the data and explain why a meta-analysis was not performed.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for publication bias.
Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quotes: "Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest."
Reasoning: The authors provide a statement about conflicts of interest.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quotes: "What is the ideal surgical approach for intra-abdominal testes? a systematic review"
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quotes: "Abstract There is controversy regarding the ideal surgical management of intra-abdominal testes (IAT) to preserve fertility; we conducted a systematic review to address this problem."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quotes: "In approximately 2–5 % of males, one or both testes fail to descend into the scrotum by birth" [...] "However, surgical correction of IAT is often technically challenging, as the testicular vessels may not be of sufficient length to allow mobilization of the testis into the scrotum."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the existing knowledge about the topic.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quotes: "We conducted a systematic review of literature focusing on the surgical treatment of IAT, including quality assessment of each study."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed, but do not explicitly mention the PICOS components.
Response: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quotes: "We included all studies that examined diagnostic and surgical correction techniques for IAT, even if this was not the primary focus of the study. Our outcomes of interest were success of orchiopexy (testis viable and located in the scrotum), testicular atrophy, and intra-operative and post-operative complications."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and outcomes of interest used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quotes: "We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to September 2014."
Reasoning: The authors describe the databases searched and the time frame for the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quotes: "We used the following search terms: ‘‘Cryp- torchidism’’ AND ‘‘Intra-abdominal’’ OR ‘‘Abdomen/ab- dominal cavity/inguinal canal/groin.’’ We limited our search to studies in English that pertained only to human males (excluding intersex patients), and excluded editorials and case studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide some details about the search strategy, but do not provide a full electronic search strategy for any database.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quotes: "Article screening took place in two stages—title and abstract, and full-text screening—both of which were conducted independently by two re- viewers, followed by a consensus process. If consensus could not be reached at either stage of screening, a third reviewer was consulted."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quotes: "One reviewer extracted data from each of the included studies, and a second reviewer checked the data for accu- racy and completeness."
Reasoning: The authors describe the data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quotes: "Our outcomes of interest were success of orchiopexy (testis viable and located in the scrotum), testicular atrophy, and intra-operative and post-operative complications."
Reasoning: The authors list the outcomes of interest, but do not define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quotes: "Two researchers" [...] "quality assessed each relevant study using AMSTAR for systematic reviews (SRs), Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and MINORS for non-randomized studies."
Reasoning: The authors describe the tools used for assessing the quality of the included studies, which includes an assessment of risk of bias.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any summary measures.
Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quotes: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not possible."
Reasoning: The authors explain why a meta-analysis was not performed, but do not describe any other methods of synthesizing results.
Response: [No]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing for risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quotes: "Our initial search yielded 774 studies. After title-abstract screening, 224 studies remained" [...] "We performed full-text screening for these articles, excluding 17 that did not meet our criteria" [...] "The remaining 31 studies comprised two SRs and 29 non-randomized studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies at each stage of the selection process, but do not provide a flow diagram.
Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quotes: "The remaining 31 studies comprised two SRs and 29 non-randomized studies; we quality assessed and summarized these studies (Table 1)."
Reasoning: The authors mention summarizing the characteristics of the included studies in a table.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quotes: "The SRs achieved quality scores of 4 [37] and 5 [38] out of a possible 11. The quality scores of the non-randomized studies ranged from 7 to 16 out of a possible 24, with a median of 10."
Reasoning: The authors present the quality scores of the included studies, which includes an assessment of risk of bias.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present summary data or effect estimates for each study.
Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quotes: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not possible."
Reasoning: The authors explain why a meta-analysis was not performed.
Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention conducting any additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quotes: "Our overall finding is that there is a paucity of good-quality evidence on this topic" [...] "We cautiously recommend the following: location and diagnosis of IAT should be conducted via laparoscopy, followed by inguinal canal exploration if necessary; low IAT should be corrected by primary orchiopexy, while high IAT should be corrected by either one- or two-stage FSO, according to the surgeon’s preference; the decision to perform an open or laparoscopic procedure should also be based on the surgeon’s preference."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and provide recommendations based on the strength of the evidence.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quotes: "This is a fairly comprehensive systematic review, as our search included four major databases; however, it is possible that we missed some evidence by limiting our review to English language, published literature" [...] "Despite these biases, we elected to consider non-randomized studies for inclusion in our review, due to the overall lack of evidence from RCTs available in the surgical literature."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quotes: "Further studies—particularly RCTs—are needed to confirm the validity of these recommendations, and to improve the current surgical techniques for optimization of long-term outcomes."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quotes: No relevant quotes found.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention any sources of funding or other support for the review.
Response: [No]

163. Weih 2012: Current practice and future perspectives in the treatment of short bowel syndrome in children—a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 NA 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 1 0 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0


LLM response

15 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the established therapeutic approaches together with a discussion of the future perspectives in the treatment of patients with SBS."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "An analysis of Medline-published therapeutic options in the treatment of SBS was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the involvement of multiple researchers in the study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Articles were found using “short bowel syndrome”, “children”, “therapy”, “parenteral nutrition”, “surgical treatment”, “recirculating loops”, “re-verse segments”, “Bianchi procedure”, “STEP”, “small bowel transplantation”, and “tissue engineering” as search items."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the use of multiple search terms and the Medline database, but do not mention the use of any other databases or supplementary search strategies.
- Answer: [No]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the inclusion or exclusion of grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "There are three main approaches toward the treatment of SBS. These are: 1. Surgical approaches 2. Non-surgical approaches 3. Tissue engineering"
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general overview of the types of studies included, but do not provide specific details about the participants, interventions, and outcomes of each study.
- Answer: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any methods used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Acknowledgments We are very grateful that this publication has been supported by “Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie.”"
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge a source of support for the systematic review, but do not mention any potential conflicts of interest for the included studies.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "REVIEW ARTICLE Current practice and future perspectives in the treatment of short bowel syndrome in children—a systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Purpose Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a malabsorption disorder of the intestine, which leads to an inadequate alimentary supply. A number of therapeutic approaches are already in use, but research advances may provide new options in the future. The purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the established therapeutic approaches together with a discussion of the future perspectives in the treatment of patients with SBS. We review those studies dealing with the treatment of SBS patients and discuss both surgical and non-surgical approaches together with tissue engineering."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a background, objectives, and a brief overview of the methods and results, but does not include information on data sources, study eligibility criteria, study appraisal and synthesis methods, limitations, or a systematic review registration number.
- Answer: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is generally defined as a disorder in which the patient’s resorptive capacity of the intestine function is not sufficient to provide an adequate alimentary supply."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the current understanding of short bowel syndrome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the established therapeutic approaches together with a discussion of the future perspectives in the treatment of patients with SBS."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an objective for the review, but do not explicitly state the questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "An analysis of Medline-published therapeutic options in the treatment of SBS was performed. Articles were found using “short bowel syndrome”, “children”, “therapy”, “parenteral nutrition”, “surgical treatment”, “recirculating loops”, “re-verse segments”, “Bianchi procedure”, “STEP”, “small bowel transplantation”, and “tissue engineering” as search items."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the search terms used and the database searched, but do not provide detailed eligibility criteria or a rationale for their choices.
- Answer: [No]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "An analysis of Medline-published therapeutic options in the treatment of SBS was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the use of the Medline database, but do not provide dates of coverage or the date of the last search.
- Answer: [No]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Articles were found using “short bowel syndrome”, “children”, “therapy”, “parenteral nutrition”, “surgical treatment”, “recirculating loops”, “re-verse segments”, “Bianchi procedure”, “STEP”, “small bowel transplantation”, and “tissue engineering” as search items."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of search terms used, but do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "An analysis of Medline-published therapeutic options in the treatment of SBS was performed."
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe the data collection process.
- Answer: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not list or define the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [NA]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Conducting the Medline-analysis using the mentioned main search items yielded 787 publications. Selection criteria consisted of (1) application of the treatment strategy in humans or (2) application of the tissue engineering. After applying these criteria, only 81 publications were included in the analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide the number of studies screened and included, but do not provide the number of studies assessed for eligibility or reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present the characteristics for each study or provide citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present summary data or effect estimates for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [NA]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, the treatment of SBS patients remains very complex. A combination of different approaches may add up the risks and issues of each procedure rather than combine the possible benefits."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors do not discuss limitations at the study, outcome, or review level.
- Answer: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, the treatment of SBS patients remains very complex. A combination of different approaches may add up the risks and issues of each procedure rather than combine the possible benefits."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Acknowledgments We are very grateful that this publication has been supported by “Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie.”"
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge a source of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

164. Wenk 2015: Incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernias in children following unilateral repair — A meta-analysis of prospective studies

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1


LLM response

31 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.4%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "The aim of the present meta-analysis study is to systematically appraise the incidence of metachronous contralateral childhood inguinal hernia following unilateral inguinal hernia repair using data from well-designed prospective studies."
Reasoning: The authors clearly state the research question and the inclusion criteria.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "Data from selected studies were extracted by two authors (RNV and KW)."
Reasoning: The authors mention that two authors were involved in data extraction.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library Issue 7 of 12, July 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2014) and EMBASE (1947 to August 2014) were searched."
Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and provided the search terms.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature.
Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28–32]."
Reasoning: The authors provide a list of included studies but do not provide a list of excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "Six studies involving 1669 children were included."
Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies, but not in a detailed manner.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "We used common descriptive and inferential meta-analysis methods to compare incidence rates and odds ratios of MCIH events across different studies and subgroups."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "Overall, a funnel plot (Appendix 4. Figure A2) did not show evidence for publication bias."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot.
Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: "There was no funding to the present study."
Reasoning: The authors mention the source of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernias in children following unilateral repair — A meta-analysis of prospective studies."
Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "Purpose: The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the incidence of a metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) in children with unilateral inguinal hernia and therefore to propose or to reject routine contralateral groin exploration."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed operations in pediatric surgery [1]."
Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "The aim of the present meta-analysis study is to systematically appraise the incidence of metachronous contralateral childhood inguinal hernia following unilateral inguinal hernia repair using data from well-designed prospective studies."
Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Inclusion criteria consisted of prospective observational studies (a), with minimal follow-up time of one year (b), assessing newborns, infants, children, adolescents and young adults, aged from 0 to 19 years (c), without contralateral groin exploration or laparoscopic closure of CPPV (d)."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library Issue 7 of 12, July 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2014) and EMBASE (1947 to August 2014) were searched."
Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "For MEDLINE search the following search term was used: ‘(InfantORChildORAdolescent) AND ("inguinal Hernia"OR"processus vaginalis") AND (Incidence OR"Treatment Outcome"ORRecurrenceORLaparoscopyORcontralateralORSurgeryORExamination) AND (english[Language]ORgerman[Language])’. The MEDLINE search resulted in 2747 titles and ended the 20th of August 2014."
Reasoning: The authors present the full electronic search strategy for the MEDLINE database.
Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28–32]."
Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Data from selected studies were extracted by two authors (RNV and KW)."
Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "The primary outcome was the overall incidence of MCIH in children with unilateral inguinal hernia (i). Secondary outcomes consisted of incidence of MCIH in male versus female children (ii); in children younger than 1 year of age versus older children (iii); in children with primarily right- versus primarily left-sided inguinal hernia (iv); and in children with open versus cleft versus closed CPPV (v)."
Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "We used common descriptive and inferential meta-analysis methods to compare incidence rates and odds ratios of MCIH events across different studies and subgroups."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "We examined heterogeneity between studies with standard chi-square tests and calculated the I-square statistics, which measure the proportion of variation in treatment effect estimates due to between-study heterogeneity [14]. Depending on the result of the heterogeneity test, fixed or random effect models were used to combine the results from the different studies [15]."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "Overall, a funnel plot (Appendix 4. Figure A2) did not show evidence for publication bias."
Reasoning: The authors specify an assessment of publication bias.
Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "The initial MEDLINE search yielded 2747 references. Search of CENTRAL and EMBASE database returned 304 and 3443 references respectively, none in addition to prior search. Searching the reference lists from 7 other known meta-analyses [4,6,9–12] yielded no additional studies that met inclusion criteria. Thirteen prospective studies were not included because of short or undefined follow-up [16–24], bilateral explorations in a subgroup of patients [25,26], and incorrect calculation of MCIH [27] (Appendix 2. Table A1 and Appendix 3. Figure A1). Six studies met the inclusion criteria [7,28–32]."
Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "Six studies involving 1669 children were included. Overall MCIH was 6% (95% CI from 4% to 8%). The odds for MCIH development were significantly larger in children with an initial left-sided hernia (OR 2.66 with 95% CI from 1.56 to 4.53) and in children with open contralateral processus vaginalis (CPV) (OR 4.17 with 95% CI from 1.25 to 13.9)."
Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide the citations.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "A forest plot was used to summarize and visualize the results of the meta analysis (Fig. 1). Since the test for heterogeneity was significant (p-value b 0.001), results from the random effect model were used. Overall MCIH was 6%. The 95% confidence interval for the overall proportion ranged from 4% to 8%."
Reasoning: The authors present simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals with a forest plot.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "Since the test for heterogeneity was significant (p-value b 0.001), results from the random effect model were used. Overall MCIH was 6%. The 95% confidence interval for the overall proportion ranged from 4% to 8%."
Reasoning: The authors present results of the meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: "Overall, a funnel plot (Appendix 4. Figure A2) did not show evidence for publication bias."
Reasoning: The authors present results of an assessment of publication bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not mentioned.
Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "The present meta-anlaysis shows that the overall risk of MCIH in children (aged 0–19 years) is 6%. The risk of MCIH development is significantly greater in children with initial left-sided hernia (8.5% vs. 3.3%) and in children with open contralateral patent processus vaginalis (13.8% vs. 3%)."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "Lack of uniformity in age restrictions and variation in inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g. exclusion of patients with ascites) that were applied in different analyses may also have impacted on results."
Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "The present meta-analysis shows, that nearly 17 (overall MCIH = 6%; 100/6 = 16.7) contralateral explorations (number needed to treat) are necessary in order to prevent one metachronous inguinal hernia."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: "There was no funding to the present study."
Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
Response: [Yes]

165. Wilkinson 2012: Outcomes in distal hypospadias: A systematic review of the Mathieu and tubularized incised plate repairs

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 0 NA 0 1 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 NA 1 0 1


LLM response

25 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "Methods: For this meta-analysis, the Medline (1990e2009), Embase (1990e2009) and Cochrane databases were searched using the keyword ‘hypospadias’. Inclusion criteria were: i) primary repairs; ii) distal hypospadias; iii) paediatric case series; iv) standard Mathieu and TIP techniques; v) complication data obtainable from the paper."
- Reasoning: The authors have clearly stated their research question and inclusion criteria.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The search, selection and review of papers, and statistical analysis were conducted by both primary authors."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that both primary authors were involved in the search, selection, and review of papers, indicating a duplicate process.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "The Medline (1990eDec 2009), Embase (1990eDec 2009) and Cochrane databases were searched using the single search term ‘hypospadias’ to ensure the broadest capture of relevant papers."
- Reasoning: The authors have searched three databases and provided the search term used.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention searching for grey literature or including/excluding studies based on their publication status.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "The initial Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane database search returned 8347 papers. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as previously described, 403 abstracts were reviewed and 129 papers retrieved for detailed analysis. Subsequently, 23 papers met all necessary criteria and were included in the analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors provide numbers of studies at each stage of the selection process, but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "This group comprises 1872 TIP repairs in 15 series and 1496 Mathieu repairs in 10 series (Table 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors provide some characteristics of the included studies in the text and refer to a table for more details.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: Since the authors did not assess the quality of the included studies (A7), they could not have used it in formulating conclusions.
- Response: [NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "All results were tabulated and statistical analysis applied using Fisher’s exact test (Statistical Package for Social Sciences v14 .0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical method used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflict of interest/Funding: None."
- Reasoning: The authors clearly state that there is no conflict of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Outcomes in distal hypospadias: A systematic review of the Mathieu and tubularized incised plate repairs"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Aim: To compare complication rates after distal hypospadias surgery using the tubularized incised plate (TIP) and Mathieu techniques. Methods: For this meta-analysis, the Medline (1990e2009), Embase (1990e2009) and Cochrane databases were searched using the keyword ‘hypospadias’. Inclusion criteria were: i) primary repairs; ii) distal hypospadias; iii) paediatric case series; iv) standard Mathieu and TIP techniques; v) complication data obtainable from the paper. Cases were only included in the denominator for each complication if explicitly identified in the paper. Fisher’s exact was used for statistical analysis, with P < 0.05 considered significant. Main results: 129 papers were selected for full analysis; 23 papers met the inclusion criteria comprising 1872 TIP repairs and 1496 Mathieu repairs. We identified an increased incidence of urethral fistulae with the Mathieu technique (3.8% vs 5.3%, P Z 0.028); however, this is lost on subgroup analysis. An increased incidence of meatal stenosis was identified in the TIP group (3.1% vs 0.7%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: There is no clear consensus on the ideal method of repair for distal hypospadias. Both the Mathieu and TIP techniques have been shown to have low rates of postoperative complications. Comparison between series is difficult because of a lack of consistency in reporting complications and follow up. We advocate uniform standards for reporting outcomes of hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Hypospadias is one of the most common congenital conditions affecting males worldwide. Over 200 different repairs are described in the available literature although two repairs, the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair and the Mathieu technique, dominate the current literature."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of the existing literature.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "Aim: To compare complication rates after distal hypospadias surgery using the tubularized incised plate (TIP) and Mathieu techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed, including participants (patients undergoing distal hypospadias surgery), interventions (TIP and Mathieu techniques), and outcomes (complication rates).
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Our inclusion criteria were: i) primary repairs only, ii) clearly defined series of exclusively distal hypospadias, iii) paediatric case series, iv) standard Mathieu and TIP techniques, and v) complication data obtainable from the paper. Letters, review articles, case reports and duplicate patient series were excluded."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "The Medline (1990eDec 2009), Embase (1990eDec 2009) and Cochrane databases were searched using the single search term ‘hypospadias’ to ensure the broadest capture of relevant papers."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources and the date range of the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The Medline (1990eDec 2009), Embase (1990eDec 2009) and Cochrane databases were searched using the single search term ‘hypospadias’ to ensure the broadest capture of relevant papers."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search strategy for three databases, but do not provide enough detail for the search to be repeated.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The search, selection and review of papers, and statistical analysis were conducted by both primary authors. The references of included papers were reviewed to identify potential additional series not identified in the initial database search. All titles and abstracts were reviewed initially to select papers for full review if they contained results of distal hypospadias repairs using either the Mathieu or TIP repair. Where the relevance of a paper was unclear a review of the full paper was undertaken."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "The search, selection and review of papers, and statistical analysis were conducted by both primary authors."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that both primary authors were involved in the data extraction process, but do not provide details on the method of data extraction.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The presence or absence of urethral fistula or meatal/urethral stenosis was used as a primary outcome measure."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought, but do not define them or mention any assumptions or simplifications made.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe any methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "All results were tabulated and statistical analysis applied using Fisher’s exact test (Statistical Package for Social Sciences v14 .0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA)."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measure used (Fisher's exact test).
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "All results were tabulated and statistical analysis applied using Fisher’s exact test (Statistical Package for Social Sciences v14 .0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: "Subsequent breakdown of the results, excluding those series in which length of follow up is not explicitly stated, led to a loss of significance when looking at differences in the incidence of postoperative fistula formation between the two techniques (3.6% TIP vs 3.4% Mathieu, P < 0.77)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a subgroup analysis, but do not indicate whether it was pre-specified.
- Response: [Yes]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane database search returned 8347 papers. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as previously described, 403 abstracts were reviewed and 129 papers retrieved for detailed analysis. Subsequently, 23 papers met all necessary criteria and were included in the analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies at each stage of the selection process, but do not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "This group comprises 1872 TIP repairs in 15 series and 1496 Mathieu repairs in 10 series (Table 1)."
- Reasoning: The authors present some characteristics of the included studies and refer to a table for more details, but do not provide the citations.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "We identified an increased incidence of urethral fistulae with the Mathieu technique (3.8% vs 5.3%, P Z 0.028) and an increased incidence of meatal stenosis in the TIP group (3.1% vs 0.7%, P < 0.001) (Table 2)."
- Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group, but do not provide confidence intervals or a forest plot.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review, not a meta-analysis, so this item is not applicable.
- Response: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: "Subsequent breakdown of the results, excluding those series in which length of follow up is not explicitly stated, led to a loss of significance when looking at differences in the incidence of postoperative fistula formation between the two techniques (3.6% TIP vs 3.4% Mathieu, P < 0.77)."
- Reasoning: The authors present results of a subgroup analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "There is no clear consensus on the ideal method of repair for distal hypospadias. Both the Mathieu and TIP techniques have been shown to have low rates of postoperative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and their relevance to healthcare providers.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Reporting outcomes from hypospadias surgery is not easy; there are a large number of factors that may influence the reporting and assessment of hypospadias outcomes, such as the classification of degree of hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "There is no clear consensus on the ideal method of repair for distal hypospadias. Both the Mathieu and TIP techniques have been shown to have low rates of postoperative complications. Comparison between series is difficult because of a lack of consistency in reporting complications and follow up. We advocate uniform standards for reporting outcomes of hypospadias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "Conflict of interest/Funding: None."
- Reasoning: The authors state that there was no funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

166. Wright 2013: Effect of Preoperative Hormonal Stimulation on Postoperative Complication Rates After Proximal Hypospadias Repair: A Systematic Review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

27 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.5%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of prominent studies from 1990 to 2010."
- Reasoning: The authors have stated that they conducted a comprehensive search, but they did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Response: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Title and abstract screening was conducted independently by 2 authors to select all citations that might contain comparisons of interest. Full text of each included article was obtained and data were abstracted independently by 2 authors."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that two independent authors conducted the study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of prominent studies from 1990 to 2010."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned the databases they used for the search and the years of coverage.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "A gray literature search of conference abstracts was also performed."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that they searched for grey literature.
- Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "The initial search strategy yielded 288 articles. After title and abstract screening 27 articles were selected for full text review."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned the number of articles found and screened, but they did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Demographic data are outlined in table 1. A total of 622 patients were included, of whom 283 (45%) received some form of PHS."
- Reasoning: The authors have provided some characteristics of the included studies in the text and in a table.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Critical appraisal of the included studies was carried out by 2 independent reviewers using a quality assessment instrument adopted from Elyas et al, modified to fit the objectives of this study."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that they assessed the quality of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "The published literature generally is of low quality and lacks standardized reporting of important patient and surgical details."
- Reasoning: The authors have considered the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate using a random effects model."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that they used a random effects model for the meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Asymmetry in the funnel plot indicates that publication bias may be present, as there is a relative paucity of studies describing high complication rates."
- Reasoning: The authors have assessed the likelihood of publication bias.
- Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any potential sources of support or conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Effect of Preoperative Hormonal Stimulation on Postoperative Complication Rates After Proximal Hypospadias Repair: A Systematic Review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of preoperative hormonal stimulation on complication rates following proximal hypospadias repair."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the systematic review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Surgical correction of hypospadias is a technically demanding procedure with well-defined complications, including glans dehiscence, urethrocutaneous fistula, meatal stenosis and unsatisfactory cosmesis due to scarring."
- Reasoning: The authors have provided the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "We systematically reviewed the pertinent literature to explore the current data on the impact of PHS on surgical outcomes after reconstruction of proximal defects."
- Reasoning: The authors have provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Predetermined criteria for study inclusion consisted of 1) publication between 1990 and 2010, 2) focus on human subjects, 3) hypospadias as primary diagnosis, 4) exposure of patients to some form of hormonal stimulation preoperatively or postoperatively, 5) performance of surgical repair, 6) reporting of postoperative complications and 7) clinical research designation."
- Reasoning: The authors have specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of prominent studies from 1990 to 2010."
- Reasoning: The authors have described the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present a full electronic search strategy for any database.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Title and abstract screening was conducted independently by 2 authors to select all citations that might contain comparisons of interest. Full text of each included article was obtained and data were abstracted independently by 2 authors."
- Reasoning: The authors have stated the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Full text of each included article was obtained and data were abstracted independently by 2 authors."
- Reasoning: The authors have described the method of data extraction from reports.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data extraction was completed in duplicate and reviewed for accuracy and quality."
- Reasoning: The authors have mentioned that data extraction was completed in duplicate, but they did not list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Critical appraisal of the included studies was carried out by 2 independent reviewers using a quality assessment instrument adopted from Elyas et al, modified to fit the objectives of this study."
- Reasoning: The authors have described the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "The odds ratio for a complication occurring with preoperative hormonal stimulation use was 1.67 (CI 0.96 –2.91, p  0.07, I 2  0%)."
- Reasoning: The authors have stated the principal summary measures.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate using a random effects model."
- Reasoning: The authors have described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Asymmetry in the funnel plot indicates that publication bias may be present, as there is a relative paucity of studies describing high complication rates."
- Reasoning: The authors have specified an assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial search strategy yielded 288 articles. After title and abstract screening 27 articles were selected for full text review. A gray literature search identified only 1 study from the 2008 American Urological Association annual meeting proceedings. Of the resultant 28 studies 2 were commentaries and 2 required translation (1 Spanish, 1 French). Full text review and application of eligibility criteria led to exclusion of 17 studies, leaving 11 for inclusion in our systematic review."
- Reasoning: The authors have given the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Demographic data are outlined in table 1. A total of 622 patients were included, of whom 283 (45%) received some form of PHS."
- Reasoning: The authors have presented the characteristics for which data were extracted for each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: "Critical appraisal of the included studies was carried out by 2 independent reviewers using a quality assessment instrument adopted from Elyas et al, modified to fit the objectives of this study."
- Reasoning: The authors have presented data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "The odds ratio for a complication occurring with preoperative hormonal stimulation use was 1.67 (CI 0.96 –2.91, p  0.07, I 2  0%)."
- Reasoning: The authors have presented the results of individual studies, including effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "The odds ratio for a complication occurring with preoperative hormonal stimulation use was 1.67 (CI 0.96 –2.91, p  0.07, I 2  0%)."
- Reasoning: The authors have presented the results of the meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: "Asymmetry in the funnel plot indicates that publication bias may be present, as there is a relative paucity of studies describing high complication rates."
- Reasoning: The authors have presented the results of an assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "To our knowledge this is the only systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effect of preoperative hormonal stimulation on operative outcomes after hypospadias repair."
- Reasoning: The authors have summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "The published literature generally is of low quality and lacks standardized reporting of important patient and surgical details."
- Reasoning: The authors have discussed the limitations at the study and review level.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "The published literature generally is of low quality and lacks standardized reporting of important patient and surgical details. As a result, no strong conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of PHS on surgical outcomes."
- Reasoning: The authors have provided a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

167. Yang 2011: Laparoscopic vs open herniorrhaphy in the management of pediatric inguinal hernia: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


LLM response

30 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.3%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The purpose of this study was to review the current literature and perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of LH in the repair of PIH."
- Reasoning: The authors state the research question and the method (systematic review and meta-analysis) they will use to answer it.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "The citations, abstracts, or full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by 3 reviewers (YCL, ZHY, and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that three reviewers independently evaluated and selected the studies, indicating a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "All published studies until July 30, 2010, were searched with the terms laparoscopy, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy, pediatric inguinal hernia, and open herniorrhaphy from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, without lower date limit."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases using specific search terms.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: "This review was limited to the published studies, and no contact was made with the authors to obtain unpublished data."
- Reasoning: The authors explicitly state that they limited their review to published studies, indicating that they did not include grey literature.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "One hundred thirty-eight studies were initially found to report the LH in the management of PIH using the keywords laparoscopy and pediatric inguinal hernia."
- Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies initially found but do not provide a list of these studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A summary of the studies' method, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes was provided in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, including 1543 cases of LH and 657 cases of OH."
- Reasoning: The authors provide tables summarizing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by 3 reviewers (YCL, ZHY, and TQS), who assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies independently. A critical review checklist of the Dutch Cochrane Centre was used to appraise the RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that they assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a critical review checklist.
- Answer: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: "In this systemic review and meta-analysis, we demonstrated that LH is efficient for the inguinal hernia repair in children, with similar operative time for unilateral hernia, length of hospital stay, recurrence, and complication rates with OH."
- Reasoning: The authors' conclusions are based on the results of their systematic review and meta-analysis, indicating that they considered the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and ORs were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the statistical methods they used to combine the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: "Because of the limited case number and insufficient data, the current meta-analysis possesses potential shortcomings to exactly compare some essential parameters between LH and OH, such as theater time, cost, quality of treatment, and postoperative MCIH."
- Reasoning: The authors acknowledge potential shortcomings in their meta-analysis, but they do not specifically assess the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 30200284, no. 30600278, no. 30772359, no. 81071997, no. 81072073), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-06-0641), Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (2008-889), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2010JC025)."
- Reasoning: The authors disclose the sources of funding for their systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Laparoscopic vs open herniorrhaphy in the management of pediatric inguinal hernia: a systemic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose: Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy (LH) has been evolved as a minimally invasive technique for pediatric inguinal hernias (PIHs). Considerable debate exists regarding the benefits of LH over conventional open herniorrhaphy (OH). The aim of this review was to critique the current literature to determine the efficacy of LH. Methods: Published studies until July 30, 2010, were searched from Medline, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational clinical studies (OCSs) with a comparison of LH and OH were included. A systemic review and meta-analysis were performed using the odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. Results: Of 138 studies, 3 RCTs and 4 OCSs were eligible for inclusion criteria, comprising 1543 cases of LH and 657 cases of OH. Compared with OH, shorter operative time for bilateral hernias (WMD = −11.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], −20.61 to −1.68; P = .02) and lower rate of metachronic contralateral hernia (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.76; P = .01) were noted in LH. However, no significant difference was observed between LH and OH in patients' age, sex, affected side, operative time for unilateral hernias, duration of hospital stay, time to resume full activity, recurrence, and complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is superior to OH in the repair of bilateral PIH and lower rate of metachronic contralateral hernia, with similar operative time for unilateral hernias, length of hospital stay, recurrence, and complication rates. Because of the publishing bias, a series of RCTs with standard report format and uniform unit are necessary to explore the efficiencies of LH in the management of PIH."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Inguinal hernias, one of the inguinoscrotal abnormalities because of failure to close the processus vaginalis, are common conditions of infancy and childhood [1]. Herniotomy is the standard procedure for pediatric inguinal hernia (PIH), with a high success rate and low rate of complications [2]. The principle for the repair of PIH is the complete ligation of patent processus vaginalis [3]. Some patients develop hernia on the opposite side after surgical repair, which is known as metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) [4]. Recurrence after an open procedure may be attributed to a failure to ligate the sac high enough at the internal ring, injury to the floor of inguinal canal because of operative trauma, failure to close the internal ring in girls, or postoperative wound infection and hematoma [5]. Therefore, contralateral exploration and postoperative hernia recurrence remain the major problems of conventional open herniorrhaphy (OH) in children with an indirect hernia [5]. In addition, injury to the reproductive system is the most frequent causes of infertility because of childhood inguinal herniorrhaphy [6]. Thus, it remains one of the duties for pediatric surgeons to improve the treatment of inguinal hernias."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about pediatric inguinal hernias and their treatment.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The purpose of this study was to review the current literature and perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of LH in the repair of PIH."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed, referencing participants (children with PIH), interventions (LH), comparisons (with OH), outcomes (efficacy of LH), and study design (systematic review and meta-analysis).
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Eligibility criteria included all available studies comparing LH with OH (without diagnostic hernioscopy) for the repair of PIH and with quantitative data on outcome parameters. The pediatric population was defined as younger than 18 years when the patient underwent laparoscopic or open herniorrhaphy."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "All published studies until July 30, 2010, were searched with the terms laparoscopy, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy, pediatric inguinal hernia, and open herniorrhaphy from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, without lower date limit."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "All published studies until July 30, 2010, were searched with the terms laparoscopy, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy, pediatric inguinal hernia, and open herniorrhaphy from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, without lower date limit."
- Reasoning: The authors present the search terms used and the databases searched, but they do not provide a full electronic search strategy that could be repeated.
- Answer: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "The citations, abstracts, or full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by 3 reviewers (YCL, ZHY, and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Three reviewers (YCL, ZHY, and TQS) independently assessed selected studies, extracted, and tabulated data from each article with a predefined data extraction form."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Data regarding the following factors were considered: first author, publication date, study method, participant features, intervention characteristics, definition of complications, and outcome measures. Outcome parameters for inclusion were patients' age, sex, affected side, operative time, time to resume full activity, duration of hospital stay, recurrence, metachronic contralateral hernia, and complications."
- Reasoning: The authors list and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: "Each included article was appraised by 3 reviewers (YCL, ZHY, and TQS), who assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies independently. A critical review checklist of the Dutch Cochrane Centre was used to appraise the RCTs."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and ORs were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."
- Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in their analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager 4.2.10 Software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. If the I2 value was less than 50%, then a fixed effects meta-analysis was applied; if the I2 value was 50% or more, then the random effects meta-analysis was used."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: "Because of the limited case number and insufficient data, the current meta-analysis possesses potential shortcomings to exactly compare some essential parameters between LH and OH, such as theater time, cost, quality of treatment, and postoperative MCIH."
- Reasoning: The authors mention potential shortcomings in their meta-analysis, but they do not specifically assess the risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "One hundred thirty-eight studies were initially found to report the LH in the management of PIH using the keywords laparoscopy and pediatric inguinal hernia. After screening all titles and abstracts, the number of studies was reduced to 37 by limiting the inclusion criteria as laparoscopic herniorrhaphy, open herniorrhaphy, and pediatric inguinal hernia. After independent review, 23 publications dealing with comparison of LH and OH for the treatment of PIH were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Sixteen of those studies were subsequently excluded because of insufficient data and no quantitative data in children, leaving 3 RCTs and 4 observational clinical studies (OCSs) for systemic review."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A summary of the studies' method, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes was provided in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, including 1543 cases of LH and 657 cases of OH."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study in tables, but they do not provide the citations.
- Answer: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on the risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "In 2 RCTs and 2 OCSs [9,12,13,18], analysis of the pooled data revealed that the operative time of LH for unilateral hernia was not significantly different from that of OH (Fig. 3A; WMD = 0.53; 95% CI, −3.54 to 4.60; P = .80) but with unacceptably statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 75.3%)."
- Reasoning: The authors present simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals for all outcomes considered.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "In 2 RCTs and 2 OCSs [9,12,13,18], analysis of the pooled data revealed that the operative time of LH for unilateral hernia was not significantly different from that of OH (Fig. 3A; WMD = 0.53; 95% CI, −3.54 to 4.60; P = .80) but with unacceptably statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 75.3%)."
- Reasoning: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not applicable.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In this systemic review and meta-analysis, we demonstrated that LH is efficient for the inguinal hernia repair in children, with similar operative time for unilateral hernia, length of hospital stay, recurrence, and complication rates with OH. Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is superior to OH in the repair of bilateral PIH and lower rate of metachronic contralateral hernia."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Because of the limited case number and insufficient data, the current meta-analysis possesses potential shortcomings to exactly compare some essential parameters between LH and OH, such as theater time, cost, quality of treatment, and postoperative MCIH."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "We believe that until then, pediatric surgeons can make the better decision to choose LH or OH for the treatment of PIH."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 30200284, no. 30600278, no. 30772359, no. 81071997, no. 81072073), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-06-0641), Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (2008-889), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2010JC025)."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

168. Yang 2013: Postoperative intussusceptions in children and infants: a systematic review

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 1 1 0 NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 0 NA 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

31 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "To review the clinical features of POI, we performed this study based on the systematic review of the published literature."
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives.
- Answer: [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "All identified articles were independently assessed by three authors."
- Reasoning: The authors mention that three authors independently assessed the articles, suggesting a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles that reported the children and infants with POI" [...] "MEDLINE electronic database was searched in April 2013 using key words ‘‘postoperative intussusception’’. References lists of identified articles were screened for additional publications of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a comprehensive literature search in the MEDLINE database and reference lists of identified articles.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Five hundred and four papers were obtained by searching the database. Two more articles were identified by manual search" [...] "Twenty-eight measured up to the criteria and were included" [...] "Four hundred and eighty were excluded because they were animal studies, review articles, adults cases, irrelevant to the current study or published in language other than English."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a list of included studies and mention the number of excluded studies, but do not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 1 shows the detail of included cases."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a table with detailed characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention the scientific quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Detailed data regarding study design, patient characteristics, initial diagnoses, procedure types, time of POI onset, symptoms, treatment and type of intussusceptions were extracted into an electronic data sheet in a standardized manner."
- Reasoning: The authors describe a method for combining the findings of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention assessing the likelihood of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention any potential conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Postoperative intussusceptions in children and infants: a systematic review"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract Background Postoperative intussusception (POI) is an unusual complication in children and infants who underwent various kinds of surgery" [...] "Conclusions POI should be suspected in pediatric surgical patients who showed signs of intestinal obstruction in the early postoperative period. Early recognition and prompt management are important."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Postoperative intussusception (POI) is a rare complication after various kinds of operations" [...] "Even in large centers, the reported patients with POI were limited."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "To review the clinical features of POI, we performed this study based on the systematic review of the published literature."
- Reasoning: The authors provide an explicit statement of the question being addressed, but do not reference PICOS.
- Answer: [No]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Only studies published between 1990 and 2013 with reported cases younger than 18 years of age were eligible for inclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles that reported the children and infants with POI" [...] "MEDLINE electronic database was searched in April 2013 using key words ‘‘postoperative intussusception’’. References lists of identified articles were screened for additional publications of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the information sources used in the search and the date last searched.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "MEDLINE electronic database was searched in April 2013 using key words ‘‘postoperative intussusception’’."
- Reasoning: The authors present the electronic search strategy for the MEDLINE database.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "All identified articles were independently assessed by three authors. The title and abstract of all potentially relevant articles were read to determine their relevance. Full articles were also scrutinized if the title and abstract were unclear."
- Reasoning: The authors state the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Detailed data regarding study design, patient characteristics, initial diagnoses, procedure types, time of POI onset, symptoms, treatment and type of intussusceptions were extracted into an electronic data sheet in a standardized manner."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "Detailed data regarding study design, patient characteristics, initial diagnoses, procedure types, time of POI onset, symptoms, treatment and type of intussusceptions were extracted into an electronic data sheet in a standardized manner."
- Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not state the principal summary measures.
- Answer: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Detailed data regarding study design, patient characteristics, initial diagnoses, procedure types, time of POI onset, symptoms, treatment and type of intussusceptions were extracted into an electronic data sheet in a standardized manner."
- Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe methods of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Five hundred and four papers were obtained by searching the database. Two more articles were identified by manual search" [...] "Twenty-eight measured up to the criteria and were included" [...] "Four hundred and eighty were excluded because they were animal studies, review articles, adults cases, irrelevant to the current study or published in language other than English."
- Reasoning: The authors give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 1 shows the detail of included cases."
- Reasoning: The authors present characteristics for each study and provide the citations.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present data on risk of bias of each study.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present simple summary data for each intervention group or effect estimates and confidence intervals for each study.
- Answer: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: This is a systematic review without a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [NA]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not give results of additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "The systematic review included 26 studies with a total of 127 cases of POI published between 1990 and 2013" [...] "This reviews summarized a relatively large number of this rare disease, and outlined some basic characteristics of POIs in children."
- Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Limitation related to the heterogeneity of included studies. Firstly, the initial operations of patients included in each study were various" [...] "Secondly, the level of the institutions, experiences of surgeon, the selection of diagnostic modality were also different among studies, which make the combination analysis and drawing a powerful conclusion difficult."
- Reasoning: The authors discuss limitations at the study and review level.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "POI is a rare complication in children receiving surgery. Early recognition of this entity is difficult because of the rarity and atypical clinical presentations" [...] "Most of the patients recovered uneventful provided being managed promptly."
- Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors do not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

169. Youssef 2016: Flap versus fascial closure for gastroschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0


LLM response

29 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Quote: "A registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015016745) of comparative studies was performed, querying multiple databases without language or date restrictions."
Reasoning: The authors registered their systematic review protocol on PROSPERO, indicating an a priori design.
Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Quote: "Multiple reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and literature quality."
Reasoning: The authors mention multiple reviewers, suggesting a duplicate study selection and data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Quote: "Papers with pertinent titles were systematically identified by searching the following sources: AMED, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Africa-wide information, Biosys, Global Health, LLAOS, and Web of Science in November 2014 with no date or language restrictions."
Reasoning: The authors searched multiple databases and did not apply language or date restrictions, indicating a comprehensive literature search.
Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Quote: "Gray literature was sought, where appropriate, by probing the abstracts of relevant conferences and contacting the authors for any unpublished results."
Reasoning: The authors explicitly mention searching for grey literature.
Response: [Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Quote: "Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, of which three were multi-institutional."
Reasoning: The authors mention the number of studies included but do not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Quote: "The characteristics of the included studies are highlighted in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Quote: "The quality of included studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the case–control studies shown in Table 2."
Reasoning: The authors used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Quote: "The results of this review are limited by the quality of included studies and further prospective evidence is needed to clarify the role of flap closure for patients with gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors acknowledge the limitations of their review based on the quality of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.2 (Copenhagen) [16]. Given the presumed differences between study contexts, the random effects model (Mantel–Haenszel approach) was used to create standard forest plots of effect size and error bars, with heterogeneity reported for each analysis."
Reasoning: The authors used appropriate statistical methods to combine the findings of the studies.
Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Quote: "A Funnel plot of the log odds ratio against the standard error for these nine studies demonstrated relative asymmetry, suggesting potential publication bias."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias using a funnel plot.
Response: [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on potential conflicts of interest.
Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Quote: "Flap versus fascial closure for gastroschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: The title clearly identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Quote: "a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 19 January 2016 Accepted 7 February 2016 Key words: Gastroschisis Systematic review Meta-analysis Flap closure Background: Flap closure represents an alternative to fascial closure for gastroschisis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes comparing these techniques. Methods: A registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015016745) of comparative studies was performed, querying multiple databases without language or date restrictions. Gray literature was sought. Outcomes analyzed included: mortality, ventilation days, feeding parameters, length of stay (LOS), wound infection, resource utilization, and umbilical hernia incidence. Multiple reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and literature quality. Meta-analysis of outcomes was performed where appropriate (Revman 5.2). Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, of which three were multi-institutional. Quality assessment revealed unbiased patient selection and exposure, but group comparability was suboptimal in four studies. Over- all, 1124 patients were evaluated, of which 350 underwent flap closure (210 immediately; 140 post-silo). Meta- analysis revealed no significant differences in mortality, LOS, or feeding parameters between groups. Flap patients had less wound infections (OR 0.40 [95%CI 0.22–0.74], P = 0.003). While flap patients had an increased risk of umbilical hernia, they were less likely to undergo repair (19% vs. 41%; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Flap closure has equivalent or superior outcomes to fascial closure for patients with gastroschisis. Given potential advantages of bedside closure and reduced sedation requirements, flap closure may represent the preferred closure strategy."
Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the study including background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, and systematic review registration number.
Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Quote: "Gastroschisis (GS) is a congenital full thickness defect of the ab- dominal wall that is increasing in prevalence worldwide [1,2]. Although the survival rate of neonates with GS is high, the burden of survivor morbidity remains considerable [3]. Various techniques have been described to close the defect, with the two most common methods being an operative fascial closure with sutures and a non- operative sutureless ‘flap’ closure [4]."
Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about gastroschisis.
Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Quote: "With significant reported treatment variability of patients with GS and a lack of consensus regarding the best method to close the ab- dominal wall defect [11,12], the objective of this investigation was to compare the short-term outcomes of flap closure and fascial closure through a formal systematic literature review and meta-analysis."
Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the research question being addressed, with reference to participants (patients with GS), interventions (flap closure and fascial closure), comparisons (between flap closure and fascial closure), outcomes (short-term outcomes), and study design (systematic review and meta-analysis).
Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Quote: "The protocol of this review was prospectively published in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42015016745) [13]."
Reasoning: The authors indicate that a review protocol exists, where it can be accessed (PROSPERO registry), and provide the registration number.
Response: [Yes]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Quote: "Our inclusion criteria were formulated according to the ‘PICOS’ format as follows: • Population: All infants born alive with the diagnosis of GS and who underwent abdominal defect closure. • Intervention: Sutureless flap closure either primarily or after silo reduction, in simple and complex GS cases. • Control: Operative fascial closure under general anesthesia either primarily or after a silo, in simple and complex GS cases. • Outcomes: The primary outcome was mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, the number of post-intervention days on mechanical ventilation, the number of post-intervention days on total parenteral nutrition (TPN), the number of Nil Per Os days (NPO), the incidence of surgical site infection, the incidence of umbilical hernia, the need for umbilical hernia repair, and markers of resource utilization. • Study type: Only comparative studies (retrospective or prospective) that included both the intervention and control group and that reported at least one outcome of interest were included."
Reasoning: The authors specify the study characteristics (PICOS) and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Quote: "Papers with pertinent titles were systematically identified by searching the following sources: AMED, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Africa-wide information, Biosys, Global Health, LLAOS, and Web of Science in November 2014 with no date or language restrictions."
Reasoning: The authors describe all information sources used in the search and the date of the last search.
Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Quote: "For each of these databases, a search strategy guided by our institution's scientific librarian was established according to the database design (Appendix A)."
Reasoning: The authors mention a search strategy and refer to an appendix for details, but the full electronic search strategy is not provided in the text provided.
Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Quote: "All of the resulting titles were twice inspected independently; papers were excluded if one of the following exclusion criteria were met: basic science or animal studies, non-comparative studies or case reports, or papers that did not include GS patients. Abstracts were then reviewed and papers further excluded based on irrelevant methods of closure, whether the method of the closure was clearly explained or not, and any study that did not include either the primary or the secondary out- comes of this review. Full texts of all titles that were deemed relevant by either reviewer (where possible) were then retrieved."
Reasoning: The authors describe the process for selecting studies, including screening and eligibility criteria.
Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Quote: "Multiple reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and literature quality."
Reasoning: The authors mention multiple reviewers, suggesting a duplicate data extraction process.
Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Quote: "Outcomes analyzed included: mortality, ventilation days, feeding parameters, length of stay (LOS), wound infection, resource utilization, and umbilical hernia incidence."
Reasoning: The authors list the variables for which data were sought.
Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Quote: "The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for case–control studies was used to critically appraise the quality of included papers."
Reasoning: The authors used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias in individual studies.
Response: [Yes]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.2 (Copenhagen) [16]. Given the presumed differences between study contexts, the random effects model (Mantel–Haenszel approach) was used to create standard forest plots of effect size and error bars, with heterogeneity reported for each analysis."
Reasoning: The authors state the principal summary measures used in the meta-analysis.
Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Quote: "Meta-analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.2 (Copenhagen) [16]. Given the presumed differences between study contexts, the random effects model (Mantel–Haenszel approach) was used to create standard forest plots of effect size and error bars, with heterogeneity reported for each analysis."
Reasoning: The authors describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency.
Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Quote: "A Funnel plot of the log odds ratio against the standard error for these nine studies demonstrated relative asymmetry, suggesting potential publication bias."
Reasoning: The authors assessed the risk of publication bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Quote: "Out of 4494 titles found by electronic search and 4 by hand search, 1844 records were identified after duplicate removal. Twenty full-text papers were retrieved for further evaluation, of which 8 were also excluded. Finally, twelve studies (1 prospective [10] and 11 retrospective studies [17–27]) were included for qualitative and quantitative analyses."
Reasoning: The authors provide the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
Response: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Quote: "The characteristics of the included studies are highlighted in Table 1."
Reasoning: The authors provide a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
Quote: "The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for case–control studies was used to critically appraise the quality of included papers."
Reasoning: The authors present data on the risk of bias of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Response: [Yes]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Quote: "Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in mortality, LOS, or feeding parameters between groups. Flap patients had less wound infections (OR 0.40 [95%CI 0.22–0.74], P = 0.003). While flap patients had an increased risk of umbilical hernia, they were less likely to undergo repair (19% vs. 41%; P = 0.01)."
Reasoning: The authors present summary data and effect estimates for each intervention group for all outcomes considered.
Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Quote: "Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in mortality, LOS, or feeding parameters between groups. Flap patients had less wound infections (OR 0.40 [95%CI 0.22–0.74], P = 0.003). While flap patients had an increased risk of umbilical hernia, they were less likely to undergo repair (19% vs. 41%; P = 0.01)."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals.
Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
Quote: "A Funnel plot of the log odds ratio against the standard error for these nine studies demonstrated relative asymmetry, suggesting potential publication bias."
Reasoning: The authors present the results of their assessment of risk of bias across studies.
Response: [Yes]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on additional analyses.
Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Quote: "Available evidence justifies the increasing use of flap closure as a method to close the abdominal defect in patients with GS. It results in comparable short-term outcomes when compared to fascial closure, and obviates the need for general anesthesia in some cases. It also appears to reduce the rate of surgical site infections, and while the incidence of umbilical hernias is unsurprisingly higher, these may not need operative correction."
Reasoning: The authors summarize the main findings and consider their relevance to healthcare providers.
Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Quote: "The results of this review are limited by the quality of included studies and further prospective evidence is needed to clarify the role of flap closure for patients with gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors discuss the limitations of their review, including the quality of included studies.
Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Quote: "The results of this review are limited by the quality of included studies and further prospective evidence is needed to clarify the role of flap closure for patients with gastroschisis."
Reasoning: The authors provide a general interpretation of the results and discuss implications for future research.
Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Quote: Not available.
Reasoning: The full text does not provide information on funding sources for the systematic review.
Response: [No]

170. Zani 2015: Is single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery more painful than standard laparoscopy in children? Personal experience and review of the literature.

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus NA NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA NA 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


LLM response

12 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 98.9%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "After Internal Review Board approval, a prospective study was performed on all patients undergoing SIPES between March 2010 and March 2011 at our institution."
- Reasoning: The study was approved by an Internal Review Board and was conducted prospectively.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction.
- Response: [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "Scientific databases (PubMed, Medline, OVID, ERIC, and Cochrane Collaboration) were searched using the keywords “single port surgery” and “child”."
- Reasoning: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether grey literature was included in the search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide a list of included and excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "A total of 677 (S343, SIPES=334) patients were reported in these eight studies."
- Reasoning: The text provides some information on the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Response: [No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the scientific quality of the included studies was used in formulating conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [No]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on whether the likelihood of publication bias was assessed.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Conflicts of interest.—The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript."
- Reasoning: The authors have declared that there is no conflict of interest.
- Response: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Is single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery more painful than standard laparoscopy in children? Personal experience and review of the literature"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a review of the literature.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide an abstract or structured summary.
- Response: [No]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "It has been speculated that single incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) in children could result in more postoperative pain given the device size for a child umbilicus. Herein, we compare the postoperative pain in children who underwent SIPES or standard laparoscopy (SL)."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides a rationale for the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of our study was to investigate whether children who underwent SIPES suffer from greater postoperative pain than those who underwent SL."
- Reasoning: The introduction provides an explicit statement of the research question.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Only comparative articles that were published between January 2008 and November 2012 and that analysed postoperative pain following SIPES or SL in children were included."
- Reasoning: The text provides some information on the eligibility criteria for the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "Scientific databases (PubMed, Medline, OVID, ERIC, and Cochrane Collaboration) were searched using the keywords “single port surgery” and “child”."
- Reasoning: The text provides information on the databases used for the literature search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "Scientific databases (PubMed, Medline, OVID, ERIC, and Cochrane Collaboration) were searched using the keywords “single port surgery” and “child”."
- Reasoning: The text provides some information on the search strategy, but it is not detailed enough to be repeated.
- Response: [No]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [No]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the data collection process.
- Response: [No]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the data items sought.
- Response: [No]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the principal summary measures.
- Response: [No]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [No]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Of the 102 retrieved articles that met the search criteria, eight reported a comparison of postoperative pain levels following SIPES and SL procedures in children."
- Reasoning: The text provides some information on the number of studies screened and included, but does not provide reasons for exclusions at each stage or a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "A total of 677 (S343, SIPES=334) patients were reported in these eight studies."
- Reasoning: The text provides some information on the characteristics of the included studies, but not in a comprehensive manner.
- Response: [No]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide summary data or effect estimates for each study.
- Response: [No]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide results of a meta-analysis.
- Response: [No]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, the present study suggests that single port laparoscopic surgery in children is feasible, safe and associated with a similar postoperative pain to standard laparoscopy."
- Reasoning: The text provides a summary of the main findings.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not discuss limitations of the study.
- Response: [No]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "In conclusion, the present study suggests that single port laparoscopic surgery in children is feasible, safe and associated with a similar postoperative pain to standard laparoscopy."
- Reasoning: The text provides a general interpretation of the results.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant information found in the text.
- Reasoning: The text does not provide information on the funding of the systematic review.
- Response: [No]

171. Zhao 2015: Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


LLM response

24 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 100%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the research question and aim of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors independently extracted data from the list of the included studies, and a third reviewer was required for a final decision in the case of any discrepancies."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two independent reviewers extracted data and a third reviewer was involved in case of discrepancies.
- Response: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "An electronic search was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE from 2000 to 2014."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the databases and the time period used for the search.
- Response: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Response: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Twelve studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective study and 7 retrospective studies) that included 2,109 pediatric patients were studied."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned the number and types of studies included but did not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Response: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 1 outlines basic demographic data from each included study, including study style, male:female sex ratio and BMI (kg/m2) or weight (kg) in each group."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a table with the characteristics of the included studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any quality assessment of the included studies.
- Response: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention the quality of the included studies in their conclusions.
- Response: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "For continuous variables, we calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous variables, we used odds ratios (ORs)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods used to combine the findings of the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Response: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any conflicts of interest.
- Response: [No]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Response: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract: Purpose Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been considered as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "As surgical techniques have developed and the demand for procedures that cause less pain and have better cosmetic outcome, more and more surgeons draw their attention to minimally invasive techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Response: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the research question.
- Response: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention a review protocol or registration.
- Response: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Inclusion criteria: (1) clinical trails that compared single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy between 2000 and 2014; (2) children younger than 18 years with acute appendicitis; (3) original data included some of the following: operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the eligibility criteria for the studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "An electronic search was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE from 2000 to 2014."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Response: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "The search terms single-incision, transumbilical, three-port, conventional, laparoscopic surgery, children and appendectomy were used individually and in combination."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the search terms used in the search strategy.
- Response: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two authors independently extracted data from the list of the included studies, and a third reviewer was required for a final decision in the case of any discrepancies."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "Two authors independently extracted data from the list of the included studies, and a third reviewer was required for a final decision in the case of any discrepancies."
- Reasoning: The authors described the data extraction process.
- Response: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "The primary objective of our analysis was to evaluate the operative time, length of hospital stay. Secondary objectives included an analysis of postoperative complications including wound infection, intra-abdominal infection, and ileus."
- Reasoning: The authors listed and defined the variables for which data were sought.
- Response: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any methods for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Response: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "For continuous variables, we calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous variables, we used odds ratios (ORs)."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Review Manager (RevMan) software ver. 5.3 was used for data statistical analysis. For continuous variables, we calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous variables, we used odds ratios (ORs)."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Response: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "The initial search strategy identified 213 citations and 26 of them were retrieved for full text review. Twelve trials met total inclusion criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors provided numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, but did not provide a flow diagram.
- Response: [No]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 1 outlines basic demographic data from each included study, including study style, male:female sex ratio and BMI (kg/m2) or weight (kg) in each group."
- Reasoning: The authors presented characteristics for each study in a table.
- Response: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Response: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Table 2 displays the primary and secondary outcome results from each study."
- Reasoning: The authors presented summary data and effect estimates for each study in a table.
- Response: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant in mean operating time for SILA compared with CLA (95 % CI -0.22 to 7.76; P = 0.06)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Response: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Response: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any additional analyses.
- Response: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "In conclusion, our study suggests that SILA is a feasible and safe surgical procedure alternative to CLA for pediatric patients with appendicitis."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "Our systematic review and meta-analysis does have some limitations. On one hand, the overall methodologic quality and reporting of the included trials in children was poor. Some included studies had rather small sample size. On the other hand, there was evidence of statistical heterogeneity among different studies in terms of operative time and length of hospital stay."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the review.
- Response: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "However, most of the studies included in our meta-analysis were retrospective studies. Therefore, more prospective randomized controlled trials are needed in children to draw a more convincing conclusion."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and implications for future research.
- Response: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: No relevant quote found.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any sources of funding for the review.
- Response: [No]

172. Zhu 2016: Minimally invasive surgery for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a meta-analysis

PRISMA
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Human Consensus 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
Human Consensus 0 NA 1 1 0 1 1 0 NA 0 0 1 0
LLM (GPT-4) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

AMSTAR
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11
Human Consensus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LLM (GPT-4) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1


LLM response

24 quote(s) from publication full text (mean similarity 99.8%)


A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
- Quote: "To compare the safety and efficacy of MIS with traditional surgical approach for CDH, we performed an appropriate meta-analysis of the related studies."
- Reasoning: The authors stated their research question and inclusion criteria before conducting the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- Quote: "Two authors (Zhu and Wu) independently performed an electronic database search to identify studies that met the eligibility criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors mentioned that two independent researchers were involved in the study selection process.
- Answer: [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Quote: "We performed a literature search of the PubMed database (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA) that covered the period from 1966 to December 2013. The search conducted for Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was restricted to English-language literature."
- Reasoning: The authors described their search strategy, including the databases and time period searched.
- Answer: [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether they included grey literature in their search.
- Answer: [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Quote: "Our (Zhu and Wu) preliminary search revealed 70 relevant studies, and 61 of them were eventually excluded because they were merely narrative studies or case reports or did not evaluate the surgical outcomes that were the focus of this review."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a list of included studies but did not provide a list of excluded studies.
- Answer: [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Quote: "Table 1 shows the detail information of all the trials."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a table detailing the characteristics of the included studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of the scientific quality of the included studies.
- Answer: [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not assess the scientific quality of the included studies, so they could not have used it in formulating their conclusions.
- Answer: [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Quote: "Review Manager 5.0, which was created by the Cochrane Collaboration for meta-analysis (http://www.cochrane.org), was used for statistical analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors used a recognized tool for meta-analysis to combine the findings of the studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention any assessment of publication bias.
- Answer: [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- Quote: "Compliance with ethical standards. Conflict of interest YZ declares no conflict of interest. YW declares no conflict of interest. QP declares no conflict of interest. LM declares no conflict of interest. HL declares no conflict of interest. LL declares no conflict of interest."
- Reasoning: The authors declared their conflicts of interest.
- Answer: [Yes]


P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Quote: "Minimally invasive surgery for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a meta-analysis"
- Reasoning: The title identifies the report as a meta-analysis.
- Answer: [Yes]

P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Quote: "Abstract. Objectives To compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with traditional open surgical approach for congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). Methods A literature search was performed using the PubMed database, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials using a defined set of criteria. The outcomes, which include post-operative mortality, incidence of hernia recurrence, rates of patch use and complications, were analyzed. Results We investigated nine studies, which included 507 patients. All studies were non-randomized historical control trials. The MIS group had a significantly lower rate of post-operative death with a risk ratio of 0.26 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.68; p = 0.006] but a greater incidence of hernia recurrence with a risk ratio of 3.42 (95 % CI 1.98–5.88; p \ 0.00001). Rates of prosthetic patch use were similar between the two groups. Fewer cases of surgical complications were found in the MIS group with a risk ratio of 0.66 (95 % CI 0.47–0.94; p = 0.02). Conclusions MIS for CDH repair is associated with lower post-operative mortality and morbidity compared with traditional open repair. Although rate of patch use appears to be comparable, the increased risk of CDH recurrence should not be ignored. The lack of well-controlled prospective trials still limits strong evaluations of the two surgical techniques."
- Reasoning: The abstract provides a structured summary of the review, including the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
- Answer: [Yes]

P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Quote: "Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a congenital defect in diaphragm development, which occurs in approximately 1 in 2500–4000 live births [1]. Surgical repair via laparotomy or thoracotomy is the traditional treatment for patients with CDH. Since the first report by Silen et al. on thoracoscopic CDH repair in an adolescent in 1995 [2], minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques, both laparoscopic and thoracoscopic, have been considered as alternative approaches for CDH repair. However, this new technique has not gained widespread acceptance among surgeons mainly because of the controversy involving its safety and efficacy, such as mortality, recurrence rate and complication rate."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a rationale for the review in the context of what is already known about the topic.
- Answer: [Yes]

P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Quote: "To compare the safety and efficacy of MIS with traditional surgical approach for CDH, we performed an appropriate meta-analysis of the related studies."
- Reasoning: The authors provided an explicit statement of the questions being addressed.
- Answer: [Yes]

P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not mention whether a review protocol exists or provide any registration information.
- Answer: [No]

P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Quote: "Studies that met all the following criteria were included in the meta-analysis: (1) the trial was a randomized or non-randomized clinical trial; (2) the study was designed to compare surgical outcomes of neonates with CDH between MIS intervention and open procedures; and (3) data on incidence of mortality, recurrence, patch use, and surgical complication rate were fully or partially reported."
- Reasoning: The authors specified the study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
- Answer: [Yes]

P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Quote: "We performed a literature search of the PubMed database (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA) that covered the period from 1966 to December 2013. The search conducted for Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was restricted to English-language literature."
- Reasoning: The authors described the information sources used in the search.
- Answer: [Yes]

P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Quote: "We applied the following subject heading or keywords: ‘‘congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH)’’, ‘‘thoracoscopy’’, ‘‘endosurgery’’, ‘‘mortality’’, ‘‘recurrence’’, ‘‘patch’’, and ‘‘complications’’."
- Reasoning: The authors presented their search strategy, including the keywords used.
- Answer: [Yes]

P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Quote: "Two authors (Zhu and Wu) independently performed an electronic database search to identify studies that met the eligibility criteria."
- Reasoning: The authors described the process for selecting studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- Quote: "We extracted data from each eligible study, including general information, post-operative mortality, incidence of hernia recurrence, rates of patch use, and complications."
- Reasoning: The authors described the method of data extraction from reports.
- Answer: [Yes]

P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Quote: "We extracted data from each eligible study, including general information, post-operative mortality, incidence of hernia recurrence, rates of patch use, and complications."
- Reasoning: The authors listed the variables for which data were sought.
- Answer: [Yes]

P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies.
- Answer: [No]

P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Quote: "Dichotomous outcomes were expressed in relative risk (RR) with their 95 % confidence interval (CI) values."
- Reasoning: The authors stated the principal summary measures used in the review.
- Answer: [Yes]

P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
- Quote: "Review Manager 5.0, which was created by the Cochrane Collaboration for meta-analysis (http://www.cochrane.org), was used for statistical analysis."
- Reasoning: The authors described the methods of handling data and combining results of studies.
- Answer: [Yes]

P15. Methods / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Quote: "Our (Zhu and Wu) preliminary search revealed 70 relevant studies, and 61 of them were eventually excluded because they were merely narrative studies or case reports or did not evaluate the surgical outcomes that were the focus of this review."
- Reasoning: The authors provided the numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.
- Answer: [Yes]

P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Quote: "Table 1 shows the detail information of all the trials."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the characteristics of each study in a table.
- Answer: [Yes]

P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present data on risk of bias within studies.
- Answer: [No]

P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Quote: "Our meta-analysis revealed a significantly lower rate of post-operative death in the MIS group than in the open techniques group with an RR of 0.26 (95 % CI 0.10–0.68; p = 0.006). The incidence of hernia recurrence was greater in the MIS group with an RR of 3.42 (95 % CI 1.98–5.88; p \ 0.00001)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of individual studies, including effect estimates and confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Quote: "Our meta-analysis revealed a significantly lower rate of post-operative death in the MIS group than in the open techniques group with an RR of 0.26 (95 % CI 0.10–0.68; p = 0.006). The incidence of hernia recurrence was greater in the MIS group with an RR of 3.42 (95 % CI 1.98–5.88; p \ 0.00001)."
- Reasoning: The authors presented the results of the meta-analysis, including confidence intervals.
- Answer: [Yes]

P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Answer: [No]

P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not present results of any additional analyses.
- Answer: [No]

P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Quote: "MIS for CDH repair is associated with lower post-operative mortality and morbidity compared with traditional open surgery. Although the rate of patch use appears to be comparable, the increased risk of CDH recurrence should not be ignored."
- Reasoning: The authors summarized the main findings and considered their relevance to key groups.
- Answer: [Yes]

P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Quote: "All the trials included are susceptible to the limitations of any retrospective review. They all have selection bias, and the numbers of patients are all small to draw a definitive conclusion. Therefore, our meta-analysis also has limitations which are caused by the bias of the included trials."
- Reasoning: The authors discussed the limitations of the study.
- Answer: [Yes]

P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Quote: "MIS for CDH repair is associated with lower post-operative mortality and morbidity compared with traditional open surgery. Although the rate of patch use appears to be comparable, the increased risk of CDH recurrence should not be ignored. The lack of well-controlled prospective clinical trials might also be a reason for the inability to find significant predictive factors. High-quality prospective clinical trials are needed to evaluate these two surgical techniques."
- Reasoning: The authors provided a general interpretation of the results and discussed implications for future research.
- Answer: [Yes]

P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- Quote: Not available.
- Reasoning: The authors did not describe sources of funding for the systematic review.
- Answer: [No]

Formatting accuracy

  • 109 / 109 (100%) usable responses with correctly formatted scores
  • 0 / 109 (0%) usable responses with minor fixable score formatting issues

  • 109 / 112 (97.3%) publications yielded usable responses on the first try
  • 3 / 112 (2.7%) publications yielded no usable responses and were thus ultimately unsuccessful after a median of 1 retries (range 1-1)
    • 3 responses with failure reason ‘too-long-for-32k-context-window’

Quoting accuracy

AMSTAR

  • 780 quotes for 109 / 109 (100%) publications, median 7 (IQR 5-9, range 1-13)
  • 700 / 780 (89.7%) perfect quotes from the publication full text
  • 1 / 780 (0.1%) perfect quotes from the LLM prompt briefing - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?
  • 79 / 780 (10.1%) quotes with deviations from source, where the accuracy was measured by a “normalized Levenshtein similarity” with custom weights, ranging from 0-100%
    • 63 minor deviations (95% ≤ similarity < 100%); mean: 98.3%
    • 8 moderate deviations (75% ≤ similarity < 95%); mean: 81.1%
    • 8 major deviations (similarity < 75%); mean: 64%

PRISMA

  • 1829 quotes for 109 / 109 (100%) publications, median 18 (IQR 14-20, range 4-31)
  • 1548 / 1829 (84.6%) perfect quotes from the publication full text
  • 3 / 1829 (0.2%) perfect quotes from the LLM prompt briefing - were instructions quoted (ok) or examples (unwanted beahviour)?
  • 278 / 1829 (15.2%) quotes with deviations from source, where the accuracy was measured by a “normalized Levenshtein similarity” with custom weights, ranging from 0-100%
    • 226 minor deviations (95% ≤ similarity < 100%); mean: 99.1%
    • 33 moderate deviations (75% ≤ similarity < 95%); mean: 85.2%
    • 19 major deviations (similarity < 75%); mean: 63.7%

LLM prompt

System prompt

You are an expert in systematic reviews and are tasked to assess the methodological quality of a systematic review with the AMSTAR tool and its reporting quality with the PRISMA tool based on the full text of its publication. AMSTAR and PRISMA consist of the following items:

<AMSTAR>
A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”
A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.
A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.
A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.
A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies..
</AMSTAR>
<PRISMA>
P1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
P2. Abstract / Structured summary: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
P3. Introduction / Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
P4. Introduction / Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
P5. Methods / Protocol and registration: Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
P6. Methods / Eligibility criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
P7. Methods / Information sources: Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
P8. Methods / Search: Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
P9. Methods / Study selection: State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
P10. Methods / Data collection process: Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
P11. Methods / Data items: List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
P12. Methods / Risk of bias in individual studies: Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
P13. Methods / Summary measures: State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
P14. Methods / Synthesis of results: Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
P15. Methdos / Risk of bias across studies: Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
P16. Methods / Additional analyses: Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
P17. Results / Study selection: Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
P18. Results / Study characteristics: For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
P19. Results / Risk of bias within studies: Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
P20. Results / Results of individual studies: For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
P21. Results / Synthesis of results: Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
P22. Results / Risk of bias across studies: Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
P23. Results / Additional analysis: Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
P24. Discussion / Summary of evidence: Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
P25. Discussion / Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
P26. Discussion / Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
P27. Funding: Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
</PRISMA>

 

User prompt

This is the full text to be assessed:
<FULLTEXT>
%FULLTEXT%
</FULLTEXT>

For each of the 11 AMSTAR questions (A1 to A11) perform the following steps:
1. Extract 1-3 relevant quotes from the full text.
2. Explain your reasoning in 1 sentence.
3. Respond to the question with either "[Yes]" if adequate, "[No]" if inadequate, or "[NA]" if not applicable or not relevant to the text (for example, combining data in quantitative synthesis (A9) or assessing publication bias (A11) in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis).

For each of the PRISMA items (P1 to P27) perform the following steps:
1. Extract 1-3 relevant quotes from the full text.
2. Explain your reasoning in 1 sentence.
3. Respond with either "[Yes]" if the item was reported, "[No]" if not reported, or "[NA]" if not applicable (for example, items P14, P15, P16, P21, P22, P23 in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis).

Before stopping, make sure you've processed all 11 AMSTAR questions and 27 PRISMA items. Do not provide a final summary paragraph in the end.